issues. that wraps up this hour of news. i'm ayman mohyeldin in for ali velshi. "deadline white house" starts right now. >> it's 4:00 in new york. i'm chris jansing in for nicolle wallace. president trump starting the year backed into a corner confronting a potentially volatile new world order. an end to republican control of congress, pointed criticism of his presidential fitness coming from within his own party. the last remnants of the guard rails of the white house gone. and special counsel robert mueller barreling toward the perilous end stage of the russia investigation. all bringing with it a growing risk of new and worsening dangers to trump's presidency. so what does an increasingly unbridled president do when backed into a corner? he lashes out. appearing desperate to control the message in the midst of all of those looming threats. trump today trying to blame the government shutdown of his own making on the democrats.

his performance featuring political stunts like dramatic meet with the dems in the situation room about the border wall. that was just in the last hour. it followed an obstinant 90-plus minute preview in the cabinet room that showed a stunning unwillingness to compromise on the wall. even by trumpian standards. >> the $5 billion, $5.6 billion approved by the house is sump a small amount compared to the level of the problem. when they say the wall is immoral, then you got to do something about the vatican because the vatican has the biggest wall of them all. they work 100%. it's never going to change. a wall is a wall. >> how long is the government going to stay partially shut down? >> could be a long time. could be quickly. >> that event also veered off the rails several times into attacks on his generals, a dig at senator john mccain, four months after his death, and, of course, a swipe or two at mitt

romney who kicked off his tenure as senator with an op-ed rebuking trump's character. the trump presidency made a deep descent in december. the departures of kelly and mattis. the appointment of senior persons of lesser experience and the abandonment of allies who fight beside us and the thoughtsless claim that america has been a sucker in world affairs all defined his presidency down. with the nation so divided, rezentsful and angry, presidential leadership and qualities of character is indispensable. and it is in this province where the incumdent's shortfall has been most glairing. those strong words generating growing chatter that there could be yet another threat added to the long list of all that trump is facing. a challenger from within his own party in the next election. joining us from "the washington post," robert costa. also bill kristol, director of

the advocacy group defending democracy together. and here at the table, white house reporter jonathan lemire, betsy woodruff for the daily beast and matt miller, former chief spokesman for the justice department. robert costa, as tempted as a am to ask you to decipher that whole vatican comment, i am going to go straight to what the president talked about today. look. we have 800,000 people out of jobs. the smithsonian closed down. you have folks who are talking about returning christmas presents. and at the same time, you have a president facing all that we just laid out. so if anybody thought that somehow this new world order was going to make him more open to compromise, more restrained, clearly they were sadly mistaken. >> most government shutdowns you have a president or a congress that's dealing with all the fallout of the federal workers being furloughed or not being paid but with this president when you talk to white house officials they say his main

concern is keeping that republican base with him. the core voter with him for 2019. a look at mitt romney, the senator-elect from utah posting that saicathing op-ed and his focus is the base, not everything you just detailed. >> and all these folks that have left, leave him surrounded by yes men. he's got people in place who are not going to tell him he shouldn't be doing things, who are not going to be a check on the facts. do they at all share a sense there that the walls might be closing in? >> there is a degree of that. certainly with mattis' departure, there are fewer of those guardrails, washington establishment members who could sometimes tell the president no and have him at least occasionally listen. with mick mulvaney, in our reporting, the president even told him at one point, don't tell me no often. that's not going -- it's not something he wants to hear often. that's not something he's interested in. he chafed in the initial months

of kelly when kelly was somewhat restricting what the president could do. there is undoubtedly growing pressure in the west wing that we know the mueller investigation continues a pace. we know that, as of tomorrow, the democrats will have control of the house of representatives and that poses an existential threat to this administration. they are going to be armed with the power of the subpoena and talk of impeachment. we'll see how they decide to do so but this is a president who -- robert is right. despite -- there's no effort here to reach across the bridge to try to grow his base of support. despite the losses his party took in the midterm elections. his focus is on the base. he feels he needs to keep them happy and have that foundation set to go forward into these battles so they are still happy with him and willing to stay with him no matter what comes next from the democrats or special counsel. >> and no sign at all that he has any understanding that the base will never be enough. he actually said this is all a political stunt by the democrats

who are looking ahead to 2020. and i wonder, as they're in the situation room right now, what is being discussed there that is a worthy of the situation room, for starters and that's going to change democrats' minds. does he think if he brings the members of the border patrol there to say we need a wall, suddenly nancy pelosi is going to come to the microphone and say, i've been wrong all this time? >> the point about the involvement of border patrol officials in these conversations gets to a really important one which is, through his entire campaign, trump bragged about building a solid concrete wall. and then after winning, all of a sudden, it seemed like it dawned on him, maybe you should ask the people responsible for patrolling the bord wler it's signature campaign promise was a good idea. turned out that's not what they wanted. so part of what's important about this is one can say with a high degree of confidence that having this meeting in the situation room is a god send to many of these white house staff because it's not happening on

camera. like the two-hour cabinet meeting where trump said all sorts of things that are going to cause headaches for the west wing for weeks to come. having this behind closed doors may be tactically helpful but is it likely to get democrats to move or budge? >> there is no moving or budging. bill kristol, you just wonder, democrats even in some ways, people have said why are they going because they know that nothing is going to happen in this meeting, and they also know that the president is more than ever filled with these flip flops, changes. today in that you and i remember talking as all this information was coming in today from that 95-minute cabinet meeting. one of the things he said was somebody mentioned $2.5 billion for the wall. that somebody was his vice president. and then he seemed to reject it, just showing you once again, you know, the vice president goes to the hill.

he says can we do $2.5 billion, and the president seems to not even have any understanding that that ever happened. >> makes you wonder whether mitch mcconnell at that point could be soon and says, i can cut a deal with nancy pelosi. we'll get a little more money for the president in turn for other things and get 67 votes in the senate and house and if he wants to veto it -- >> you really think he's going to back down on, i am not going to put anything in front of the president until i know he's going to sign it? >> if the house passes six appropriations bills tomorrow, keeping a whole bunch of agencies open, important to citizens, voters, interest groups, agriculture, epa, actual work these agencies do, businesses depend on a permit from epa or evolving loan from agriculture. you're keeping them closed because you have a disagreement about the wall? die cr on homeland security for a month. bracket that issue. but what's the rationale for

keeping the other six agencies, big agencies of the government closed? i don't see one. i think there will be a lot of pressure for actual republican voters and interest groups on senators to say what's going on here? he said so many things today worthy of comment. jame mattis was his defense secretary for two years. jim mattis resigned in a dignified way. he did not praise donald trump but did not criticize donald trump. he has literally not said a word in criticism of the united states. and trump today trashes jim mattis who is an unbelievably distinguished general and served valiantly as defense secretary swallowing hard to try to keep things, you know, in check at times going along with decisions he didn't agree with. as defense secretary for two years. the day he leaves, the first day out of office, trump trashes him. one thing to criticize mitt romney who criticized him. another thing to criticize democrats. fine. that's what trump does. criticizing jim mattis will not sit well with people including people like other people in the

cabinet. what about the acting defense secretary shanahan. what do you think about that criticism of the man you just served as deputy for two years. somebody should ask mcconnell. what do you think of that criticism? >> also, by the way, as he's about to go into a room with the democrats, he makes some remark about nancy pelosi having been in hawaii. he wants everyone to think he's the one who has been giving up his vacations and sitting in the white house and just waiting for a deal to be made. speaking of nancy pelosi, right before that meeting in the white house sit room, nancy pelosi sat down with nbc's savannah guthrie. i have a little bit of that to play. >> are you willing to come up and give him some of this money for the wall? >> no. >> because apparently that's the sticking point. >> we're talking about border security. >> nothing for the wall but that means it's a nonstarter. >> no. how many more times am i saying no? nothing for the wall. >> so nothing for the wall, matt miller.

the president said he's got to have the wall. we heard from lindsey graham today. there's no deal without a wall. where does it leave us? >> why would nancy pelosi ever give him any money for the wall? democrats disagree on whether there should be a wall or not. the president was very clear during the campaign about who was going to pay for the wall. mexico. not the united states taxpayers. not congress. the -- mexico. i don't know why democrats would ever let the president back down from that campaign pledge he made and agree to fund the wall they don't think should exist in the first place. >> you can make the argument there's a more important question to be answered. do we need a wall? who is saying that the wall is the answer to the border security problem? >> absolutely. and the problem the problem is in now, you know, he really only has one playbook. he has -- he can stage a reality television show. an event at the white house and for tv cameras and he can tweet. he doesn't have any deal-making ability or the real ability to marshal his party in defense of this. if you look at who is out

defending the position he's in, it's basically him and a few republican members of congress. mitch mcconnell is really not rushing out to defend his position. other republicans in congress aren't really excited about this government shutdown. they got lucky that the shutdown was over the holidays. as people start to feel the impact of this in the coming days, now that people returning to work and seeing the impact of this. now that you have pay cycles coming where 800,000 federal workers aren't getting the pay they expect, you'll see pressure on republican senators. and the president doesn't have an end game to get out of this. >> speaking of the wall and border security, one deep irony is this affects funding for the coast guard. service members got a temporary paycheck extension that happened just a few days ago but it's likely they'll stop being paid. that's one of the agencies that plays a key role in border security. >> they called additional people to the border. >> they seize smugglers and drugs being moved to the united states, they stop migrants

trying to enter illegally. the shutdown might result in those people losing their way, wall or no wall, it's a really goofy comcallaway to talk about border security. >> and insert into all of this mitt romney. somebody who is very well known, who has a lot of stature. robert cost ai'm going to read to you, romney inserting his independence and trump's jop critics see an opening. romney's assertion of independence is a thunderclap in the gop thrusting him forward as trump's highest profile republican foil and talking talk of trump's vulnerability of a challenger for the 2020 nomination be it romney or another trump critic. steve bannon e-mailed "the washington post" saying it begins. talk about that. >> for a long time, the bill kristol wing of the republican party or the conservative movement has had limited

options. john kasich was the rare person making noise about maybe mounting a challenge against president trump for that 2020 nomination. now with senator-elect romney making this statement, a scathing rebuke of the president, it's animated donors across the country who are uncomfortable with president trump. they are e-mailing "the post," talking to each other. they are wondering, is there an opening here if the president's approval rating goes way down in 2019 if house democrats impeach him, even if they are talking about if he leaves office at some point, who is going to step forward? they've been looking with someone with political capital. romney's statement provides them with something new to talk about and seize on as the months unfold. >> how serious do you see the possibility of a threat from within the republican party? his base is still with him but there's a whole lot of things that can happen over the course of the next several months, not the least of which is the mueller investigation, impeachment proceedings and

even -- he said today, the shutdown may be short or it may go on for a while. if the shutdown goes on for a very long while. >> a political scientist did a study. presidents with approval ratings in their own party over 70% tend not to get primaried. if you go below 74%. other times it's more of a nuisance but a damaging one. everyone has been so focused on trump being an 85% within the party, it wouldn't take that much to take him down to 70. a bad stock market, difficult mueller report, other things like this. could be -- really could, i think -- i've always thought there would be a challenge but it's now more likely to be a serious challenge and one that could be successful. and i think romney gives a huge amount of credibility to people out there thinking about doing it. donors who would like to be involved in an effort to save the republican party.

suddenly they -- it's not just bill kristol and john kasich and a few other dissident senators who are now retired. it's mitt romney coming into the senate who, obviously, has no personal stake in this. it's about the future of the party as he sees it. suddenly saying, this man doesn't have the character, not suddenly, but repeating on this moment as he's about to be sworn in to the united states senate, this man doesn't have the character to be president. very hard to say just, well, of course we should renominate him in 2020. everyone agrees he should be renominated. mitt romney doesn't agree, for one, it seems. if more and more get on that train, it could make a difference. >> i wonder if it's a sign of urgency. potus is attacked and obstructed by the mainstream media and democrats 24/7 for an incoming republican freshman senator to attack trump as their first act feeds into what the democrats and media wants and is

disappointing and unproductive. i wonder, jonathan, what an attack would have looked like if mitt romney wasn't her uncle. >> in this case, maga is still thicker than blood and she was quick to turn her back on family in defense of the president. certainly people in trump world who were somewhat surprised by this and certainly the timing of it, before romney comes to take office. he's already launched a scathing attack. they've not been that worried about intraparty challenger. the jeff flakes, john kasichs of the world point to the president's high approval ratings in the party. they feel he can survive that. romney brings a different cachet. step into the breach and try to challenge the president or if he himself is not the candidate, would he be that first salvo. that's what steve bannon is getting that. there be other efforts to unseat donald trump from the nomination going forward. but let's remember, romney himself was extremely critical of the president during the campaign and then interviewed to be his secretary of state. so we will have to see if this is a sauce stained assault or

whether this is like a one-time shot at trump and then does he fall in line. in that piece he does praise a lot of the accomplishments that trump has done. just not his character. so will he step into the role that we saw from jeff flake or john mccain or most of the time bob corker? the republican senator who is willing to stand up for the president. all those people weren't facing voters again. in mccain's case, he fell gravely ill. remains whether romney is the begin aning of a groundswell. >> he's also pretty darn secure with his voters in utah. >> robert costa, thank you. everybody else is coming back to talk about the new year bringing a bleaker legal reality for president trump with the mueller investigation plowing through the fourth quarter. and democrats hours away from taking over the house. he's geearing up for a likely showdown over the special counsel's report.

what their first steps will be. plus, trump and the generals. the president escalates his war of words against his former defense secretary jame mattis and adds another came to the list of military leaders he's starring with. and the race to 2020 got a big joellt as more and more democrats are making their intentions clear. get going with carnation breakfast essentials®. it has protein, plus 21 vitamins and minerals including calcium and vitamin d, to help your family be their best. carnation breakfast essentials®.

to help your family 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. from the be careful what you wish for file, rudy giuliani calling for an end to robert mueller's russia investigation. as the president and his aides brace for what could be a catastrophic final report from

the special counsel. giuliani tweeting, i challenge mueller to put up or shut up. you have no evidence of the president being involved in a conspiracy with anyone including russia to hack. and you also have no evidence of collusion. it's been two years so submit a report to doj, and we will answer it. but at least four key trump allies, of course, have now flipped in the mueller probe. and the special counsel has met with dozens more trump insiders, including the most senior member of his administration. so it may come as no surprise that the white house is already preparing for a fight to bury mueller's final report when the investigation finally comes to an end. joining us, frank figliuzzi, former fbi investigator for counterintelligence. so what do you think, frank? is this just rudy being rudy, saying what the president wants to hear on tv because that's what he thinks is going to keep him in the job or does it tell us anything about team trump's

strategy? >> i think there's a method to this madness. i don't think we should dismiss rudy as just the spokesperson, although that's essentially what he's become. i think there's some insights to be had here which is expect a strategy that increasingly looks like this. that's all they've got? that's all mueller could come up with? and expect that to be in effect no matter what the findings are or how horrific or grave those findings are. because i think what's happening is they are playing to the trump base. they are hoping that much of the trump base won't dig deeply into the facts, the details, read a full report, read an entire indictment. i think they are going to get sound bites from spokespeople like rudy and those sound bites are going to be, that's all they got? not much there. can't believe they spent all this money on that. no matter what the findings are. that's the strategy moving forward. >> you have talked to rudy giuliani recently betsy. and your reporting suggests his legal team is actually gearing

up for a protracted court fight. >> one potential outcome following the provision of the report to the attorney general is the white house could ask for portions of the report that characterize conversations that senior white house staff had with president trump to be withheld from public release claiming executive privilege protects those conversations. to be crystal clear, that executive privilege claim is controversial, to put it lightly. there's zero guarantee that it would be even remotely successful in court but that argument is one the president's lawyers have been making publicly since the early ince inception of the mueller investigation. and if he decides to cite that material that giuliani and others working with him is privileged, then there's a good chance it would trigger a legal fight. >> matt miller, on the face of it, if you're trying to bury mueller's findings, it sounds like you're worried about his

innocence. >> i think so. look, what frank said is right. there's another way to think about it which is defining a potential crime as narrowly as possible. and unless donald trump during the campaign got on the phone with vladimir putin and asked him to hack into hillary clinton's e-mails, never mind that he did it publicly, but if he got on the phone and asked him to do it and coordinated with wikileaks. anything short of that is not a crime. doesn't matter if you obstructed justice or was aware of people around him committing crimes and encouraged them to do so. anything short of direct involvement by the president himself in the hacking of e-mails, it's something that people shouldn't be worried about. of course, that's ridiculous. there are a number of other potential crimes here and we've seen a number of the president's aides come -- having been indicted and pled guilty at this point. the problem for the president is over the last year and a half, you have seen the two investigations, and one of the president's problems is he doesn't have criminal exposure just in the mueller investigation but also in the southern district of new york investigation. move their way up the chain to the point that now in 2019,

there's not -- there's not much higher -- there aren't many higher places for them to go. we're at the point where bob mueller will put up or shut up. not because rudy giuliani told him to but he's at the point of the investigation where he's going to tell us what he knows about the president's exposure. the same is true for the southern district of new york. >> the southern district of new york has been talked about as the greater danger and then tomorrow democrats taking over the house. we're going to see at least -- not just a series of investigations. the subpoena power that goes with it. i wonder if, you know, how many of those investigations were actually going to see. but how do you think they should best play their hand as they prepare to take charge tomorrow? >> i think the leadership there will have to be very careful to not come across as a soul mission just the purpose of holding hear,s for the sake of hearings and issuing subpoenas

for the sake of resisting trump solely. i think they'll carefully pick and choose their battles. one thing you'll see fairly early is a sharp look at acting attorney general whitaker. what were the circumstances by which he was appointed to that office? what discussions occurred about perhaps impeding, constraining in some way the russia investigation? i would expect that to be up near the front. then i think they're going to move on to some of the civil concerns, civil charges that might exist around the foundation. the trump foundation and the state of new york and the state attorney general. i think they'll likely stay clear of pending criminal investigations. i hope clearly stay clear of the mueller inquiry. but we could still see crimes that even lead to impeachment as they discuss the payments to women. right? this is a done thing. cohen has pled guilty. he's been sentenced. he -- this is something that's fair game. if they tease that out, we could see impeachment offenses simply

coming out of the money laundering and structuring and wire fraud and bank fraud regarding those payments. >> i want to bring in jackie spear of california who is a member of the house intel and armed services committee. let me get your reaction to that. frank suggests you move carefully, pick a few priorities. what is your strategy there so that you don't come across as perhaps just the resistance that it's purely political? so what are your priorities and how quickly will you move? >> so it's good advice that he's offered up, chris. i think what we're going to do in the intelligence committee is subpoena documents from persons that we've already interviewed that were not subpoenaed when they should have been. >> i'm sorry. can i interrupt you because we have pelosi and schumer at the white house. let's listen. >> -- actions taken by the republican senate of bills that have passed on the floor of the senate by over 90 votes or in

committee unanimously. led by senator mitch mcconnell. they will also present in a separate bill the bill that mr. mcconnell did for the continuing resolution for the homeland security bill until february 8th using his exact date. we have given -- we have given the republicans a chance to take yes for an answer. we have taken their proposals unamended by any house bipartisan amendments, but just staying true to what the senate has already done. our question to the president and to the republicans is, why don't you accept what you have already done to open up government, and that enables us to have 30 days to negotiate for border security. democrats have been committed to protecting our borders. it's the oath of office we take to protect and defend. it has been very important to us, and we have committed

resources to it. when we were in the majority. and we'll continue to do so. >> no, no, you're going to let us each speak, please. so the bottom line is very simple. we asked the president to support the bills that we support that will open up government. we asked him to give us one good reason -- i asked him directly. i said, mr. president, give me one good reason why you should continue your shutdown of the eight cabinet departments while we are debating our differences on homeland security? he could not give a good answer. so we would hope that they would reconsider and would support the very bills that pass the senate. four of them 92-6. two of them unanimously in the appropriations committee with mitch mcconnell's support.

the only reason that they are shutting down the government is very simple. they want to try and leverage that shutdown into their proposals on border security. we want strong border security. we believe ours are better. but to use the shutdown as hostage, which they had no argument against, is wrong. and we would urge them respectfully to reconsider and support these bills which are bipartisan, one of which mitch mcconnell proposed, open up the government, as we continue to debate what is the best way to secure our borders. >> do you see this lasting very long, the shutdown? >> we hope it doesn't, and we hope that they will not use the american people, the millions who depend on these eight

departments, and the workers who are either not working or not getting paid as hostages to have a temper tantrum, pound the table and say it's our way or we hurt all these people. we hope that won't happen. and again, they couldn't give us one answer why they wouldn't support the first bill that leader pelosi and leader -- speaker pelosi and leader hoyer will put on the floor that will open up the government. >> let me add this. let me add this. almost everybody in the room, i don't want to say everybody, believes shutting down government is a stupid public policy. it puts 800,000 people who work for the federal government at risk and it puts millions of people who rely on the federal government on a daily basis at risk. we are going to propose tomorrow a bill that has gotten the support of the senate and the house. >> but the white house says it's

a nonstarter, sir, so why move forward? >> because that is our responsibility as a co-equal branch of government. to do that which we think is -- >> he's not going to sign the bill, what's the point? >> we hope he will compromise. he ought to compromise. we are for border security. but we're also for operating the people's government in an effective fashion. >> the bottom line is very simple. on our last meeting, the president said i am going to shut the government down. they are now feeling the heat. it is not helping the president. it is not helping the republicans to be the owners of this shutdown. today we gave them an opportunity to get out of that and open up the government as we debate border security. and to say to them because he says he won't sign it and use the government as hostage, we should just give in? the american people don't want that. that's bad for our country and that's not the way to govern. >> we're asking -- we're

asking -- we're asking the president to open up government. we are giving him a republican path to do that. why would he not do it? why would he got do it? >> thank you. >> all right. so i think if there was any question about where the democrats were going to land on that, they just put up a very united front. i want to go back to jackie spear. but i'm going to give you a chance to answer the question that was shouted from the crowd. look. the white house says this is a nonstarter, so where does this leave us? >> well, unfortunately, it appears that the president wasn't interested in negotiating in that situation room meeting. i was hopeful that since he wasn't bringing in the press that there might have been -- >> were you really hopeful? >> yeah, i was hopeful because we need a win-win here. we need a win for the american people. a win for the president and a win for the democrats. and the only way we'll get that

is to have negotiations. that doesn't take place. it appears that he was doing yet another just effort to show that he was doing something because we were going to take up a bill tomorrow that was going to give the senate exactly what they had just passed. so i think, unfortunately, what we saw here today is that the president wasn't negotiating. it's time for him to negotiate. it's time are us to negotiate and there is a path forward. i just think he's unwilling to go there yet. >> so for the 800,000 people who we already know are not going to be getting their paychecks for some additional ones apparently from the epa today who are also told that they don't have any money anymore, what do you say to them? >> well, what i say to them is that it's shameful that we aren't doing our job in government. it's about high time for members to lose their pay when we shut down the government. and that will instill, i think, a degree of necessity and

urgency that we deserve relative to the people that do these jobs and rely on these services. the smithsonian shut down. so all of the families that are here to celebrate a new congress or who are visiting are not able to even see one of the jewels of washington, d.c. so shameful for all of us, frankly. and it's time for negotiations to take place. the president has got to sit down, roll up his sleeves and realize he's got to give a little. we'll give a little. and we can open government again. >> we're out of time, but i want to ask you really quickly if you put on your experience and your understanding of where we are right now in washington, d.c., how long does this go on? >> hopefully within the next week we'll have this all figured out. i think that there is a path forward. it's just a willingness to do something about it. >> congresswoman jackie spear, thank you so much. hans nichols is over at the white house. we spoke before this meeting

took place. i think it ended up where we thought it would, hans. >> we've heard both sides come out. it's clear they are no closer to a deal to end the government shutdown than before this meeting. it almost seems like both sides are dug in deeper into their positions. they've hardened and calcified. you heard representative mccarthy, the minority leader in the new congress, saying that the president wants everyone back on friday. so no deal until friday. chuck schumer insisting the senate minority leader insisting that republicans are feeling the heat, nancy pelosi talking about how they're offering them a republican path forward. this is essentially the bills that had already been passed by the senate, agreed to fund six of the agencies and agreed to fight on homeland security with a short-term bill down the line. but, chris, you nailed it. we're no closer today than before that 100-minute cabinet meeting and the situation room meeting also where they were trying to come together and get

a better sense of where there may be common ground. chris? >> hans nichols, frank figliuzzi from our earlier conversation, thanks to both of you. i wonder who steny hoyer was saying when he said almost everyone believes that a shutdown is stupid public policy. still ahead, donald trump's personal cold war with several of our nation's most decorated military generals is actually expanding this afternoon. but his opinion of himself remains as high as ever. >> i think i would have been a good general, but who knows. hey there people eligible for medicare.

gimme two minutes. and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza... is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80 percent... medicare will pay for. what's left... this slice here... well... you have to pay for that. and that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in.

this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. and these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement. that's because they meet their high standards of quality and service. review aarp medicare supplement plans and their rates in this free decision guide. call united healthcare insurance company or go online. visit aarpmedicaresupplement.com to request yours. even apply online... any time. oh. speaking of time... about a little over half way and there's more to tell. like, how... with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. great for staying with the one you know... or finding... somebody new, like a specialist. there are no networks and no referrals needed. none. and when you travel, your plan will go with you anywhere in the country. so, if you're in another state visiting the grandkids, stay awhile...enjoy... and know that you'll still be able to see any doctor

who accepts medicare patients. learn more with this free decision guide. call or go online to request yours. tick, tick, tick, time for a wrap up. a medicare supplement plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. you know, the pizza slice. it allows you to choose any doctor, who accepts medicare patients... and these are the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. whew! call or go online and find out more. i have generals that are great generals. these are great fighters. >> i see my generals. those generals are going to keep us so safe. these are central casting. if i'm doing a movie, i'd pick you, general. >> my generals and my military, they have decision-making ability. >> for a president who routinely boasts about his generals, donald trump seems perpetually at war with them.

michael flynn is awaiting a prison sentence. his replacement, h.r. mcmaster, who apparently looks like a beer salesman according to trump, left the administration amid rumors the two of them clashed. then you have john kelly with today being his last day as chief of staff. he is resigning following all those months of will here or won't he be fired reports. you might remember he had to deny that he once called trump an idiot. and finally there's james mattis, the first secretary of defense to ever resign in protest. although on that note, the president today thought to rewrite the somewhat embarrassing narrative surrounding mattis' departure, deploying a time-tested breakup strategy. he didn't dump me. i dumped him. >> but general mattis was so thrilled. but what's he done for me? how has he done in afghanistan? not too good. not too good. i'm not happy with what he's done in afghanistan. and i shouldn't be happy.

he was very thankful when i got him $700 billion and then the following year, $716 billion. so, i mean, i wish him well. i hope he does well, but as you know, president obama fired him, and essentially so did i. i want results. >> bill kristol and the table are still here. jonathan, who does trump think he's fooling here? >> president trump is somewhat thin skinned. and he does not take criticism very well. and particularly this letter really got under his skin last week. certainly he was very enamored with mattis for the first year or so of the administration. and they did. they drifted apart in part because the president was tired of mattis putting road blocks in front of him for some of his foreign policy plans. and but then when mattis over the syria decision tendered his resignation, the president initially took it reasonably well, according to reporting. as the night went on, as mattis' letter got more and more cable coverage, the president began to fume. since then we've seen him

angrily react to this, including moving up mattis' departure date. mattis was to stay on until the end of february. the president decided the secretary of defense needed to be out on january 1st. this is another occasion where he, yes, he talks about central casting, talks about being tight with the military. talks about respecting them. but if the moment there's any suggestion that one of them may turn on him or even criticize or get in the way, he hits them back even harder. >> it's also this example in microcosm of the trump presidency that he praises mattis because he didn't read the resignation letter. mckristol talked about mattis' resignation. i want to remind folks about this. >> i personally think it was valuable. i think maybe it causes the american people to take pause and say, wait a minute, if we have someone who is as selfless, as committed as jim mattis resigns his position, walking away from all the responsibility

he feels for every service member in our forces, and he does so in a public way like that, we ought to stop and say, okay. why did he do it? we ought to ask what kind of commander in chief he had that jim mattis, the good marine, felt he had to walk away. >> bill kristol, i think on any number of occasions we can go back and look at the president who has gotten into disputes with whether it's a general or the family, a gold star family. i mean, we can go on and on and on. but does this feel maybe a little bit different to you? do you think that sort of the mattis departure and the letter he wrote, his own personal stature has changed the equation a little bit? >> jim mattis, secretary of defense under donald trump, he was not still a general, though trump likes to call them all my generals. and how inappropriate is that? my generals? this is not a junta or dictatorship. we all think it's amazing.

it's trump being trump but it's really bad for that sense to get out that these generals work for the president personally somehow. including ones who left the military years ago as mattis did. when i tried to get mattis to run as an independent and we spent time together, he didn't -- one reason he didn't is because he was worried about the impact on civil and military relations. they start thinking about their military career in political terms. he's always been scrupulous about that anyway. he told people a week before he resigned that he intended to stay off all four years. he thought he was doing some good and carrying out some things that were good policy, good build-up of the military but also stopping president trump from doing certain things. and he thought he could play an important role there. he left a week later because he felt the situation had become intolerable. that's what stan mcchrystal was talking about. someone who knows mattis and talks to him. he knew mattis didn't want to leave. he wasn't looking to make money giving speeches. it wasn't like someone like

nikki haley who left within two years. she has a political future ahead of her. jim mattis was trying to do the right thing for the country and felt he couldn't do that anymore in that administration. that tells me a lot. and it got me very worried when he left. i said it at the time and it's got me even more worried now watching trump just lash out in this uncontrolled way about so many things. >> the last 30 seconds, that's all we have, matt miller. a little fact check. donald trump and general mcchrystal got fired like a dog from obama. >> he did get fired. that's true. let me say something about this, though. the way that the president talks about these generals would be dishonorable for any commander in chief. it's especially so for this one. one week ago today, the day after christmas "the new york times" reported the details of why donald trump didn't serve in vietnam when the draft was in effect. and it was because a doctor who rented an apartment from his father, donald trump's father got that doctor to write a letter claiming he had bone spurs when everyone agrees he

almost certainly didn't in return for special treatment from his dad. >> he said the bone spurs weren't really that bad and it doesn't matter. >> when he had a chance to lie to get out of serving, dodge the draft to attack these generals in the way he does is an absolute disgrace. >> up next -- two days into the new year and the democratic presidential primary is already roaring into gear. but in this political climate, will some candidates throw out the traditional rule book if they want to break through? ♪ ♪i've been really tryin', baby ♪tryin' to hold back this feeling for so long♪ ♪and if you feel, like i feel baby then come on,♪ ♪oh come on let's get it on applebee's all you can eat is here.

now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

we're only two days into 2019 and the race for 2020 is underway. the first major democratic contender has officially thrown her hat into the ring, senator elizabeth warren, who is headed to iowa this weekend after announcing on monday she is launching an exploratory committee. the senator's move kicks off a unique time for democrats. the "new york times" notes nearly 30 democrats are mulling presidential bids but hardly any of them qualify as an instant front-runner or a gifted, tested campaigner, and some of the biggest names could pass in the end. the "washington post" said, in 2015, no rational person thought donald trump would become

president. candidate x may be offstage, waiting to pounce. buckle up. first she does this intellectual bio, and then she does this instagram video with beer where it didn't even look like maybe she knew. it was a little uncomfortable. betsy woodruff, what's this about? is this now running for president in the age of trump? >> i think we all welcome additional practice drinking beer. that said, yeah, there is sort of this weird dynamic, i think, with her presentation and the way her campaign is rolled out. and political experts on both sides of the aisle indefinitely knocked her significantly for the way she answered questions about her native ancestry. those criticisms are not going to go away, and plenty of native americans came out and said the way warren talked about her connection to the native american community was really damaging because she presented it in a way that's so divorced from the way these tribes actually understand how their membership works. >> presentation is everything

here, because if you look at beto o'rourke, that's a totally different thing. i haven't checked how many views his instagram got, but he put out two views on the border. one of them got 5 million views. this is an upcoming congressman. >> this was a very glossy, well-put-together ad. it certainly screamed like it was coming from someone who was thinking about running for president. instagram is apparently the new way we're doing things -- >> would he qualify as candidate x? >> i think people are already thinking about him as a hostile candidate. it's not just when donald trump reaches the masses with his twitter account, it's alexandra cortez. she went on instagram with her cooking and warren has done an

inst instagram video in their kitchen, and it appears to be someone who likes and understands the average person. >> i'm calling those political potluck. bill crystal, if there is somebody -- of course the president was dismissive of warren. he would love to run against her. is there someone known right now that he should be worried about? >> i think the rate he's going, he should be worried about any democratic candidate, honestly. probably the democrats want someone younger and hipper than elizabeth warren, but she's an impressive woman, and i think people are too quick to dismiss her because she's not as quick on instagram as beto o'rourke. avenatti, wasn't he the hot new thing two or three months ago? these things marathon, and i think elizabeth warren is being underrated as someone who could stick to it.

>> we'll be right back. e right k and just who might you be? but a gecko - he can be trusted. i ask you if you want to save hundreds on car insurance. and you're like, yes thank you, mind babysitting my kids? i'm like, of course i'll sit with the kids. you're like a brother to me. geico.com. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. 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. not having a good breakfast can make you feel like your day never started. get going with carnation breakfast essentials®. it has protein, plus 21 vitamins and minerals including calcium and vitamin d, to help your family be their best. carnation breakfast essentials®. to help your family be their best. at first slice pizza lovers everywhere meet o, that's good! frozen pizza

one third of our classic crust is made with cauliflower but that's not stopping anyone o, that's good! but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish.

in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. touch shows how we really feel. but does psoriasis ever get in the way? embrace the chance of 100% clear skin with taltz, the first and only treatment of its kind offering people with moderate to severe psoriasis a chance at 100% clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of people quickly saw a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. ready for a chance at 100% clear skin? ask your doctor about taltz.

my thanks to bill crystal, jonathan mere, betsy phillips and that's going to do it for this afternoon. katy tur is in for the great chuck todd. >> the great chuck todd. if it's wednesday, no wall and no deal. good evening, i'm katy tur in for chuck todd. t they just emerged from a meeting with the president and declared there is no deal on the government shutdown. >> in our last meeting the president said, i'm going to shut the government down. they are now feeling the heat. it is not helping the