right by all that money, which is mostly still around, though he is not. that's all for this edition of "dateline." i'm craig melvin. thank you for watching. good morning, everyone, from msnbc world headquarters here in new york. it is 7:00 a.m. here in the east, 4:00 a.m. out west. welcome to "weekends with alex witt." what did they talk about? new questions being raised about the president's conversations with vladimir putin and why there are so few details about them. >> i had a conversation like every president does. you sit with the president of various countries. i do it with all countries. it was a great conversation. i'm not keeping anything under wraps. who's to blame and who should be worried? a new poll on the shutdown and who most americans think is responsible for it.

all the president's lawyers. the strategy behind the white house beefing up its legal team with more than a dozen attorneys. and new this morning, a report from the "washington post" chronicling efforts by president trump to conceal his conversations with russian leader vladimir putin. the paper reporting that top u.s. officials do not have detailed records, even in classified files of trump's in-person interactions with putin over five locations over the past two years. that includes a conversation shrouded in secrecy between the president and his russian counterpart on the sidelines of the g-20 summit in germany back in 2017. "the post" reports that on that occasion, president trump took, quote, possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials. the pattern of secrecy extends to the president's two-hour meeting with putin during their helsinki summit.

several administration officials telling "the post" they were never able to get a reliable readout of that meeting. president trump calling into fox news last night with his reaction. >> i have a one-on-one meeting with putin, like i do with every other leader -- i have many one-on-ones. nobody ever says anything about it. but with putin, they say, oh, what did they talk about? we talked about very positive things. i meet with putin and they make a big deal. anybody could have listened to that meeting. that meeting is open for grabs. >> well, the white house labelling that report, quote, outrageously inaccurate and advancing their argument that president trump has been tough on russia by imposing sanctions on moscow. house foreign affairs committee chair eliot engel promising to hold hearings on the, quote, mystery swirling around trump's bizarre relationship with putin and his cronies. the "post" report comes a day after "the new york times" report on the fbi opening a counterintelligence inquiry back in 2017 into whether the president had been working on behalf of russia actively or unwittingly. now the chair of the house

intelligence committee, adam schiff, underlining his plan to press forward to ensure that the president is working in our national interest. after multiple tweets yesterday dismissing the "times" report, the president and secretary of state addressed the claims. >> are you now or have you ever worked for russia, mr. president? >> i think it's the most insulting thing i've ever been asked. i think it's the most insulting article i've ever had written. >> the notion that president trump is a threat to american national security is absolutely ludicrous. >> let's bring in nicholas rasmussen, former director of the national counterterrorism center and a msnbc national security and intelligence analyst. all right, nicholas, i'm glad you're here to get right to it, because before we get to the president's interview, we now have this breaking news. it's from the "wall street journal," and it says that the national security council asked the pentagon to provide military options to strike iran.

it is a request that generated concern at the pentagon and the state department. so, first to you. would this kind of a request surprise you? would it generate concern on your behalf as well? >> well, on the one hand, alex, being, you know, the white house, the national security adviser asking the pentagon to generate options in response to a particular policy objective is not unusual. and in this case, it seems like the white house wanted options to potentially respond to attacks by shia militant groups on our embassy compound in baghdad. so, on the one hand, nothing to see here. on the other hand, that's a pretty remarkable potential escalation with iran. it's no secret that iranian-backed militant groups have threatened u.s. personnel in iraq in the past and we've had to cope with that and respond to that and put pressure on iran to respond to that certainly over the years, and this would be a pretty dramatic escalation. the other thing i would point

out is that when options like this are put forward to the white house, what you hope ensues is a reasoned policy discussion with all of the stakeholders at the table in which you kind of rely on the normal national security council processes to weigh the various pros and cons before proceeding. and in this administration, it's not always a given that you will see those processes kick into play. >> okay, how about putting forward this information to the public? is there ever, nick, a purposeful reason for leaking a story of this kind? does this serve as a message to iran, or is this merely the voice of an alarmed insider? >> it could be both. on the one hand, it could be someone choosing unilaterally to try to engage in some kind of signaling to iran, as you suggest -- hey, this is a red line for us, don't mess around, don't put our personnel in harm's way in baghdad or in iraq. in a sense, a bit of a brushback pitch to the iranian regime. on the other hand, it could be a

leak from someone who was alarmed, as you suggest, by what they saw as a pretty rapid move to escalation. the national security adviser, john bolton, is known to have a very tough line on iran. >> very hawkish, yes. >> exactly. so, i think tying the request, if the reporting is accurate, to bolton himself, certainly suggests that it might have had, you know, those intentions behind it. >> okay. let's also talk about, well, what we've put you to be here for, and then reaction to the president who on fox last night was denying the "washington post" report that he took particular steps to try to conceal his private meetings with putin. do the allegations in the article that was written by greg miller in "the post," does all this sound plausible to you? >> well, first of all, i have found in my experience greg miller to be a very meticulous reporter at the "post." and so, i take very seriously anything he has unearthed with his reporting. and again, i'm going to do a little bit of on the one hand, on the other hand here. it is not unusual for heads of

state to want to keep private or very, very closely held their conversations with other leaders. and so, not wanting to share that information widely, certainly not unusual. but denying that information to his most senior staff, if the reporting by greg is accurate, holding that back from even your most senior staff at the white house or in the cabinet room, that would be pretty remarkable. and again -- >> how about remarkable saying to the interpreter in hamburg, i don't want you to have these notes, give them to me? >> and that would certainly prevent that individual from giving a detailed readout or rundown of the conversation to other senior people who might have asked for it. look, i've known some of these individuals who serve as interpreters for our presidents at the highest levels, and there's an extraordinary amount of pressure on them. in many cases, they are exposed to one-on-one conversations with other heads of state, and they are sometimes put in a position where they are asked to be very

discrete in the way they handle that information, but this seems to go to an extreme. >> and nick, just typically, traditionally, do presidents, do they withhold information even from their cabinet members or their most trusted advisers relative to those matters, typically? >> again, not typically. i can certainly imagine instances in which a president might want to have a very brief one-on-one conversation at the end or the beginning of a meeting where he or she might want to make one particular point in total confidence to another leader. that would not be unusual, but it would be exceptional. and of course, what makes this so reportable and so remarkable, what greg unearthed, is that it's tied to putin. and of course, there are so many other questions that have arisen about president trump's peculiar relationship with putin. >> tied to putin, but according to greg, again, five times. no recordings, no detailed record of five interactions with putin over the last couple of years. that in itself is extraordinary.

not once. we're talking five times here. the president's been asked about this, certainly. you heard. we played the top of it there as to whether or not he'd ever worked on behalf of russia. he was asked by jeanine pirro. he said it's the most insulting thing i've ever been asked. how do you interpret that? >> well, of course he's insulted by that, because of course, he doesn't see himself as somehow playing to putin's agenda. you know, those of us looking from the outside wonder and ask questions and raise our concerns about why the united states seems to be aligning itself with russian objectives in places like the middle east, but of course, he doesn't see it that way. another reason why he would have put such a tight clamp on readouts of his meetings was that he, of course, felt very burned early in the administration when reports of his phone calls with other foreign leaders were leaked to the press in ways that made him look bad. so, on the one hand, again, not surprising he'd want to clamp down on this, but because it's russia, because it's putin, it raises legitimate questions about what went on in those

meetings. >> nick, i want to listen to how the president further defended himself on the russia questions. here it is. >> i've been tougher on russia than anybody else, any other -- probably any other president, period, but certainly the last three or four presidents, modern-day presidents. nobody's been as tough as i have. >> do the facts back him up on that? >> you know, it's hard to back that statement up. it seems that the congress has been the instigator behind some of the most far-reaching sanctions aimed at russia. and in most cases, it has not been the white house that has been, of course, leading the charge on statements against things that russia is doing. other cabinet members have certainly been tough rhetorically on russia, but not the president himself. the president himself has been, you know, pretty much silent in terms of direct criticism of putin or the russian regime. >> okay. nicholas, i'm going to ask you to stick around because i'm going to talk to you in a little bit about the president's claim of a crisis at the southern border. that's going to happen in just a few minutes, so i'll see you

then. >> thank you. also new this morning, a new poll from the "washington post" and abc news showing that 53% of americans blame the president and republicans in congress for the shutdown. 29% blame democrats. 13% are blaming both sides. 800,000 federal workers set to start the week without pay, some relying now on food banks to put food on their tables. hopes dwindling that the longest government shutdown ever in u.s. history will come to an end any time soon. no scheduled negotiations on this day 23, but congress is back in session tomorrow, and the president yesterday telling fox news that he has, quote, no idea whether he can get a deal done with democrats. >> i'd rather see the democrats come back from their vacation and act. they're not acting. and they're the ones that are holding it up. it would take me 15 minutes to get a deal done. i've been here for many months in the white house, and i, you know, i'm a worker. >> i know you -- >> like you, i'm a worker. >> you are a worker. >> and frankly, i'm ready,

really and willing and able to get it done. they think it's politics. i think it's bad politics. >> let's go to mike viqueira. what are the expectations? >> very low, because it has little to do with whether or not they are in washington passing bills to rename post offices and actually working to try to get something done, and that's simply because this is a standoff. it's still a game of chicken, alex, staring at each other, whatever your metaphor is, to see who's going to blink first and who's going to reopen the government, and so far, it appears that neither side is willing to move towards the other. of course, democrats say the president has taken the mantle, quote/unquote, in that infamous photo op on december 11th, and in fact, the president did declare that he would take the blame for it, and it certainly is now in uncharted territory. the longest shutdown in american history. and we're seeing now divisions, cracks, fissures, whatever you want to call it, appearing on the republican side.

many republican senators getting very antsy. lisa murkowski, lindsey graham, lamar alexander, cory gardner, people in blue states up for re-election in 2020, fizz yours on that as well as a little bit of cracks in this question of a national emergency that the president still insists -- he's sort of been back and forth on this in the last few days -- that he has the power to declare to get that wall that he treasures so much built along the southern border. that interview with jeanine pirro on fox, chockablock with news for us this morning. he had an opportunity to express his latest view and stance on that national emergency. >> by waiting to build the wall, using those funds that are available to you in a national emergency, aren't you negating the point of the emergency itself? >> well, i have the absolute right to call a national emergency. other presidents have called many national emergencies for things of lesser importance, frankly, than this, and i have

the right to do it. >> he's right, that there have been national emergencies declared in the past for matters both major and trivial, dating back to the civil war, the suspending of habeas corpus and even a postal strike in 1970 by president nixon. but again, a lot of republicans, particularly conservatives, do not favor the use of these powers to declare a national emergency, alex. >> okay, mike, stay with us because we're going to extend the conversation and we're joined right now by daniel lippman, reporter for politico and co-author of "politico's playbook." good morning to you. >> good morning, alex. >> i want to discuss the new poll by abc news and the "washington post." overall, as you see these numbers, most americans surveyed are blaming the president and republicans for the shutdown. let's remind everybody again, the president said he would take full ownership of this, but there is a pretty sharp partisan divide. 68% of republicans blaming democrats, 85% of democrats blaming republicans. so, does this ultimately show, daniel, that this whole shutdown is really boiling down to politics? >> well, it always boils down to

politics. what i think was interesting from the poll is that more republicans are supporting trump and the border wall. there used to be more skepticism about whether that was a good idea in the first place. we should note that a majority of americans are still against the border wall, but opposition is going down and support is inching up, and i think you can say that is because the republican party is a trump party. and so, if trump has been beating the drum on this for the last month every day saying where is the wall, and democrats feel like if they gave in, it would make speaker pelosi look very weak, and republicans in the white house, they've miscalculated the fact that pelosi is not going to back down as much as they want her to. >> mm-hmm. so mike, you were mentioning about the historical precedence for declaring a national emergency. if this president does end up declaring a national emergency in this instance, do you think

that's a breaking point for some republicans? >> no question. you know, we've seen conservative republicans abandon sort of the orthodoxy of conservatism over the last, you know, in the postwar era, really, over a lot of things. just take trade policy and protectionism for one, the national deficit of course ballooning now under republican control and republican administration. but this seems to be something that a lot of people are going to draw the line at. and you talk about government powers and government overreach. that might be probably the best example for them coupled with this question of eminent domain. of course, much of the land along the southern border with mexico is privately held. it would require the government to essentially take it over under the dictates of eminent domain and a lot of people would have problem with that. so, there is pushback from the house freedom caucus, of course. john cornyn, the conservative senator from texas. a lot of people on the conservative side pushing against this, to say nothing of democrats. and what does it say about where

we are right now, alex, that this appears to be the easiest off ramp to get us out of this shutdown because a lot of people feel it would satisfy everyone and would be held up in the courts for so long that it wouldn't have any immediate effect at all. that's what lindsey gram, in part, that's what his argument is here. he's urging the president to declare that national emergency. >> an effective play then right there. daniel, so in terms of the political climate where we are, and in light of the russia stories, the new poll, democrats being in control of the house, here is what the chair of the budget committee, democrat john yarmuth told me yesterday. take a listen. >> you've got basically all of the elements i think you would need to certainly warrant an impeachment hearing. the only reason for congress not to begin impeachment hearings is a political calculation, and that should never be the reason you don't do it. impeachment's there for a reason, and i think we're getting very close to having a responsiblity to begin that

process. >> so daniel, what he's essentially saying there, it's just politics holding back the democrats from pursuing doing it. do you think the climate overall is becoming more favorable for impeachment talk? >> well, politico magazine had a guide on friday about everything you need to know about impeachment. and what i think what's interesting from that is that there are not enough republican votes to impeach him in the senate or to convict him. and so, you don't want to launch a process where you impeach him in the house and then he wins in the senate and then becomes much more popular, and you basically have a wounded animal who is lashing out. you know, if you think that he's tweeting, you know, today, then just imagine when he's getting impeached. and so, i think democrats are thinking, let's wait for the mueller report, let's see what other shoes drop -- are trump's kids, is jared, are any of them in legal jeopardy? that would make it much easier for them. they need to have a clear bank

shot or it's not worth pursuing in their minds. >> okay. guys, thank you for the conversation. thank you for sticking around. the white house legal team was working to keep americans in the dark about what robert mueller finds, but what could the mueller report contain that president trump would definitely want to hide? tain that president trump would definitely want to hide g. -jamie, this is your house? -i know, it's not much, but it's home. right, kids? -kids? -papa, papa! -[ laughs ] -you didn't tell me your friends were coming. -oh, yeah. -this one is tiny like a child. -yeah, she is. oh, but seriously, it's good to be surrounded by what matters most -- a home and auto bundle from progressive. -oh, sweetie, please, play for us. -oh, no, i couldn't. -please. -okay. [ singing in spanish ] most can tell the continent or country that your ancestors are from, but ancestrydna showed me the specific places they called home. 20 million members have connected to a deeper family story.

order your kit at ancestry.com. to a deeper family story. let's see. if these packs have the same number of bladder leak pads, i bet you think bigger is better. actually, it's bulkier. always discreet doesn't need all that bulk to protect. because it's made differently. the super absorbent core quickly turns liquid to gel, for drier protection that's a lot less bulky. looks like good things really do come in small packages. always discreet. for bladder leaks. ways metal vibration therapy.at: [heavy guitar lick] [glass shattering!] not cool. freezing away fat cells with coolsculpting?

now that's cool! coolsculpting safely freezes and removes fat cells with little or no downtime. and no surgery. results and patient experience may vary. some common side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. ask your doctor if coolsculpting is right for you. and visit coolsculpting.com today for your chance to win a free treatment. unstopand it's strengthenedting place, the by xfi pods,gateway. which plug in to extend the wifi even farther,

past anything that stands in its way. ...well almost anything. leave no room behind with xfi pods. simple. easy. awesome. click or visit a retail store today. well, the first major winter storm of the year is now bringing some heavy snow to the nation's capital, as you take a

look at live pictures of the white house and reagan international airport. the d.c. area expects 6 to 10 inches of snow between now and tomorrow morning. the storm that's swept from the rockies to the mid-atlantic has killed at least seven people, and it's knocked out power to more than 100,000 customers. missouri so far gotten the worst of it with reports of up to 20 inches of snow and hundreds of car accidents along with more than 1,000 stranded motorists. pretty miserable times there. new reaction this morning from the president to report by the "washington post" that 17 new attorneys were hired by the white house in an attempt to conceal discussions between the president and his advisers from the special counsel by asserting executive privilege. let's take a listen. >> are your lawyers working to keep the mueller report from being made public? >> well, i can't tell you because i don't devote too much time. here's the bottom line -- there was no collusion. there was no obstruction. there was no anything. so you know, no calls to russia,

no nothing. so you know, it's all nonsense, jeanine. it's a hoax. it's called the russian hoax or a witch hunt. >> joining me now, msnbc legal analyst danny cevallos. executive privilege, does that work to suppress the mueller report? is that something they're even able to do or is it out of their control? >> the lesson we learned about executive privilege from the supreme court is a hazy one. basically, it exists, but we're not entirely sure the contours or the limits of executive privilege. the supreme court still has to weigh in based on an assertion of that privilege. so, if and when president trump's team asserts executive privilege, it will be like two gun slingers standing in a dusty road staring each other down as the two sides decide how far can he take executive privilege and whether the supreme court would let him. >> wait, two gun slingers with one of them having 17 lawyers

standing behind him. fact that there's 17 lawyers going after the prospect of doing this, that speaks to the haziness of all this, right? so, do you think it really can be done? >> there are two different kinds of executive privilege. there's the deliberative process where the aides and everybody get together and think about what they want to do. and you know, privilege is an important thing, because to some degree, we want aides and other people who talk to the president to be able to speak out loud in closed meetings so that they can get their ideas out there but not fear that they will be made public and embarrassed. it encourages people to throw out ideas and try to solve problems without worrying about it becoming something that everybody criticizes later on. however, the other side of that coin is that the president is the most public figure in the united states, and executive privilege must be tailored appropriately so that the public knows what's going on without compromising the executive

process itself. >> okay. just want to be clear about when all is said and done. can his attorneys edit the final report, or is it issuing a separate report after the mueller report gets out there? we heard in an interview with "the hill" on thursday rudy giuliani saying his team should be allowed to, quote, correct mueller's final report before it gets released. there's the quote. as a matter of fairness, they should show it to you so we can correct it if it's wrong. but correcting separately or correcting what gets put out there? >> in theory, this is not possible because mueller will give this report to the head of the doj, the attorney general. and then it follows an enumerated process for the report to be given to congress, whether it's a summary or a full report. but it is theoretically possible that the president as the executive head, as the head of the doj, could intervene and find a way to edit or suppress the report. there are a couple different

ways he could do that. the political consequences would be very severe. but then again, we're dealing with a president who is more than willing to try things and see how they turn out, rather than be concerned about any political controversy. >> okay. there was something else the president commented on last night, saying he's not worried about his former attorney and fixer, michael cohen's oversight testimony next month, february 7th. and instead, urged prosecutors to investigate his father. take a listen to this. >> look, i was a client of his, and you know, he's supposed to have lawyer-client privilege, but it doesn't matter because i'm a very honest person, frankly, but he's in trouble on some loans and fraud and taxi cabs. in order to get his sentence reduced, he says, i have an idea, i'll give you some information on the president. well, there is no information. but he should give information maybe on his father-in-law, because that's the one that people want to look at. it's pretty sad. it's weak and it's very sad to

watch a thing like that. i couldn't care less. >> what is that about? this is a possible attempt to intimidate a witness before testifying? >> it's a clever pr strategy trump has used in the past. when accused, he says i'll spill the beans on somebody else and then everybody looks at that somebody else for a while and maybe forgets about what trump said. but the reality is that michael cohen, like all other cooperating witnesses, trump is correct when he says, yes, he is a critical, yes, he is doing this not out of the goodness of his heart, not because he's a good citizen, but because he got caught. that is the conundrum for prosecutors any time they use a cooperating witness. but the reality is, and the 95% conviction rate of the u.s. attorneys in this country shows that juries on the whole and regular folks on the whole understand that criminals often work with other criminals and that if a cooperating witness, even though they may have some credibility issues, often, ultimately, that's the only

access, the only person that has any knowledge about what another criminal does. the reality is this, donald trump should be very concerned about michael cohen. anybody that worked that closely with him and with that many dubious business relationships as have been reported, trump should be concerned about michael cohen, even though cohen clearly has credibility issues. >> danny cevallos, never a credibility issue with you, my friend. >> sometimes. >> no, never. thank you. president trump claims the southern border's a gateway for terrorists. a new call-up separates fact from fiction. rrteorists a new call-up separates fact from fiction (rooster morning call) this is your wake-up call. if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion.

humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. talk to your rheumatologist. our because of smoking.ital. but we still had to have a cigarette. had to. but then, we were like. what are we doing? the nicodermcq patch helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. nicodermcq. you know why, we know how.

i can't tell you anything about myself. but believe me... i'm not your average consumer. that's why i switched to liberty mutual. they customized my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. and as a man... uh... or a woman...

with very specific needs that i can't tell you about- say cheese. mr. landry? oh no. hi mr. landry! liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

new this morning, the president insisting that the crisis on the border is real. he outlined in an interview on fox last night why he thinks the use of an emergency declaration to build a wall is a viable option. >> thousands and thousands of people are coming in, and we have human smugglers, we have traffickers, we have people, the biggest drug dealers in the world, and they're pouring through the parts of the border. they don't go through your areas where -- >> ports of entry. >> -- you have ports of entry, jeanine. they go through areas where you don't have any protection whatsoever, and it's really very

sad and very, very dangerous and bad for our country. a lot of crime comes from that location. >> back with me, nicholas rasmussen. nicholas, i know as director of the national counterterrorism center, which you were, that you also wrote a column on this. i'm curious your sense of the threat on the southern border. give me a reality check on this. >> well, alex, you know, i was more than content to stay out of the debate over border security, the question of whether, you know, migrants or illegal, undocumented people from overseas are coming across our southern border. it was really not my area of responsibility inside the government. but when the president and when the administration more broadly brought the terrorism question into play and used that as a rationale for what the administration is proposing on the wall and on border security, that's what led me to want to speak out. i felt like that the use of the idea somehow that terrorists were masked at the southern border and were taking advantage of our vulnerabilities at the

southern border to infiltrate into the united states to carry out terrorist attacks, it just simply -- it didn't square with reality as i knew it to be. >> look, kirstjen nielsen's going to talk about this, director of homeland security or homeland security secretary. here is what she said about all of those terrorists that are among those trying to cross into the u.s. take a listen. >> cbp has stopped over 3,000 what we call special interest aliens trying to enter the country on the southern border, aliens who the intel community have identified as of concern. they either have travel patterns that are identified as terrorist travel patterns, or they have known or suspected ties to terrorism. >> okay, so, she's put a pretty broad description on those 3,000 that she's quoting. does that square with you? >> again, she's -- she may be technically accurate in talking about special interest aliens crossing in or trying to enter the united states. special interest aliens are a category of people who would be

flagged because they do come from countries where terrorism is a concern. but of course, that doesn't make them terrorists, or it doesn't suggest that they are entering the country or trying to enter the country for terrorism-related purposes. so, it's a fuzzy bit of argumentation to make, and it leaves a misimpression. i think that's the thing that i found to be most concerning was it left the impression with the american people that we are somehow awash in potential terrorists, and unless we take this particular set of steps, we are vulnerable to terrorists at the southern border and that's simply not the reality as i understood it. >> is there a u.s. policy, and if so, what is it that you think contributes most to the prospect of terrorists wanting to attack u.s. targets? >> well, the thing that keeps us the most safe from terrorists trying to enter the united states is our watch-listing system, the fact that since 9/11 we've created a very effective system of information gathering that allows us to know about the identities of known or suspected terrorists so that we can make sure they don't get on a plane overseas or enter the country in

some other way. that watch listing system, while not perfect, is certainly better than most, if not all other systems in the world, and it's something that's done a pretty good job keeping us safe in the period since 9/11. i guess the other piece i would bring to the table is that the terrorism threat that is probably the most acute here inside the united states does not come from individuals entering the united states, it's from people who are already here, whether it's individuals who have grown more extreme over time or developed extremist ideologies over time while they've lived in the united states or people who are inspired by other ideologies, like racial supremacy or, you know, anti-government -- >> sentiments, yeah. >> the terrorists come in all shapes, sizes and colors, and it's not some category of potential immigrants at the border that we should be worried about. >> nicholas rasmussen, a sobering conversation, but thank you, nonetheless. appreciate it. the stunning, new report that suggests the president tried to conceal details of his

meetings with vladimir putin. we've got more reaction coming in today. we've got more reaction coming in today i'm a bunch of wind. and just like your stomach after that strip mall sushi, well, i'm a bit unpredictable. let's redecorate. whatsyamatter tanya, i thought you loved being spontaneous? i do. and if you've got the wrong home insurance coverage, i might break the bank too. so get allstate, and be better protected from mayhem, like me. every day, visionaries are creating the future. so, every day, we put our latest technology and vast expertise to work. ( ♪ ) the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. into your own little world.k deliveries to homes especially these days. (dad) i think it's here. (mom vo) especially at this age.

(big sister) where are we going? (mom vo) it's a big, beautiful world out there. (little sister) woah... (big sister) wow. see that? (mom vo) sometimes you just need a little help seeing it. (vo) presenting the all-new three-row subaru ascent. love is now bigger than ever. four zero expense ratio index funds directly to investors. and now we have zero account fees for brokerage accounts. at fidelity, those zeros really add up. ♪ so maybe i'll win, saved by zero ♪ at fidelity, those zeros really add up. you have 4.3 minutes this time,to yourself.rn. this calls for a taste of cheesecake. philadelphia cheesecake cups. rich, creamy cheesecake with real strawberries. find them with the refrigerated desserts.

i'm a fighter. always have been. when i found out i had age-related macular degeneration, amd, i wanted to fight back. my doctor and i came up with a plan. it includes preservision. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd. that's why i fight. because it's my vision. preservision.

also, in a great-tasting chewable. it is day 23 of the partial government shutdown, and here's how it's making an impact around the country. a terminal at miami international airport is expected to reopen briefly this morning. concourse "g" was closed yesterday afternoon to compensate for a shortage of tsa agents. pop-up food banks are serving federal employees in several

cities. the capitol area food bank has set up markets in washington, d.c., virginia and maryland to distribute free food to federal employees and contractors. and here in new york city, federal employees are getting a hand from the new york common food pantry. volunteers say their doors will remain open to affected workers as long as the shutdown lasts. placing blame for the shutdown. the court of public opinion rules, but how much does it really matter right now? and the russia-related headlines tied to president trump, will they bolster the simmering case for impeachment? but let's go to number one. and in today's tight job market, skilled jobseekers are in great demand. wallethub.com has ranked the best cities to find a job. scottsdale, arizona, leads the list, followed by columbia, maryland, and orlando, florida. meanwhile, puerto rico is the top list 50 places to visit. a big draw is "hamilton." a two-night run starring

lin-manuel miranda ended to great applause. starring lin-manuel miranda ended to great applause (dad) got it? (boy) got it. nooooooo... (dad) nooooooo... (vo) quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is two times more absorbent. bounty, the quicker picker upper. moving? that's harder now because of psoriatic arthritis. but you're still moved by moments like this. don't let psoriatic arthritis take them away. taltz reduces joint pain and stiffness and helps stop the progression of joint damage.

for people with moderate to severe psoriasis, 90% saw significant improvement. taltz even gives you a chance at completely clear skin. 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. for all the things that move you. ask your doctor about taltz.

[indistinct conversation] [friend] i've never seen that before. ♪ ♪ i have... ♪ new this morning, the "washington post" is reporting on efforts by the president to conceal his conversations and meetings with vladimir putin.

the report says on at least one occasion, the president took possession of the notes of his own interpreter. let's bring in policy strategist alayna beverly, former associate director for the white house office of urban affairs under president obama. joel payne, democratic strategist and former senate leadership aide and rena shaw. hey, welcome to you all. this is a big story. rena, i'll begin with you. all these reports about trump, russia, the fbi. we have "the new york times" and "washington post" over the last 48 hours. at any point, do you think they begin to wear down gop resistance, let's say for the impeachment talk, and you know, the potential of removal by the senate? i mean, is there anything that you think leads to that ultimately? >> well, no doubt this is a bombshell report, alex. i mean, this is really just confirming our worst fears, is that the president is having a private line of communication with putin, having met him five times now over two years. we've never really gotten good details of what was discussed.

and so, to me, essentially, trump is getting what he wants, is that private discussion with an adversary, and he doesn't see russia as an adversary, so this is a problem. no doubt that he has a different line of thinking than most republicans do. the problem is that no republicans are willing to stand up and call this what this is. and this is really, essentially, a slap in the face of all americans. we deserve transparency from this administration and we never get it. however, to your question, does it get us any closer to impeachment? i don't think so. if republicans aren't willing to stand up and publicly call out the president for trying to have private talks with putin, then we are getting nowhere closer to holding this man's feet to the fire. >> let's say, rina, and i'm going to keep you on the hot seat, because this report just came out. >> sure. >> it is a saturday night, sunday morning. do you think that there is anything this week, when you have congress back in session tomorrow, into tuesday, that there will be reaction from gop

leadership? i mean, you can give him a pass maybe for the last 12 hours, middle of a weekend. do you think this is really going to eb into their support of the president, this carte blanche support so many give him? >> no, it really will not, because what's happened here is that the gop has been remade in donald trump's image. so it becomes very hard for members of this party to essentially delineate from what this president, what this administration wants to say, is that the president needs to have talks with putin in order to come to consensus on certain things, to build better rapport. and the leaks that we have known have come from this administration for the past two years have made it tougher for the president to achieve his goals and make america safer with the help of former adversaries. i'm hearing some republicans call russia. so, yeah, i just don't see it, alex. i know it's very hopeful, but they will not move into the public sphere to call out the president. we are just not going to see it.

>> okay, alayna, to you now, because the white house has disputed the characterization and has said that the trump administration has, quote, imposed significant, new sanctions in response to russian-maligned activities. so, would that be the be the ca were beholden to russia? >> let's look at the way trump has engaged russia and vladimir putin. he has continually furthered the politics of destructive diplomacy where he has put his own relationship with -- advanced his own relationship with vladimir putin and placed that over the interests of the united states and our own diplomacy and our standing in the world. we still don't know what happened in the meetings with putin from the meeting in helsinki last summer. we still don't know what went on in that room. we don't have a read out of the meetings. we're now finding other meetings and instances where he has -- >> a total of five according to

gregg miller's report. >> exactly. a total of five. we know senior administrators and cabinet members cannot operate effectively when we don't know what's occurred in that room. it's contrary to presidential practi practice, the historical practice of presidents. it's also disconcerting when we have the fbi now having opened an investigation with president trump as the center of it. we know that he is possibly subjecting the will and the position of the united states for his own personal gain. >> okay. joel, the white house has suggested -- here's the reason trump guards his conversations. he does so because of all the leaks from the oval office and the meeting where he met with senior russian officials. trump talked about a class if ied terror plot and called james comey a nut job. those leaks are what made him more guarded with information.

is that a fair defense for the president? >> absolutely not. the last time i heard reasoning like this was in grade school when i had a bad grade and my teacher sent a note home, and i threw it away so i wouldn't get in trouble. he's hiding things that could be incriminating because he doesn't like what the truth sounds like. the truth sounds like he's allowed himself to be compromised into an asset for the russian government. and the president, when he's in trouble, he likes to hit his core issues. the wall, immigration, generally speaking things to whip up his base. it's clear to me that the president knows there's a lot of things like this in the closet and he'd rather spend his time manufacturing the crisis at the border and talking about the wall than the reality about what's going on with his administration and how much of a joke it is. >> so, these two reports, which one do you think makes republicans more alarmed? is it the fact that fbi

officials had reason to look at president trump as essentially an agent of russia? or is it that the president reportedly is trying to conceal his conversations with vladimir putin? which is the more damaging? >> i think in the world of conservatives today, particularly those who align themselves with this administration, neither are going to be that impactful. to me i find it to be just ludicrous that this president could be reported on in such a way. i find it to be true. i trust our institutions. what trump has done is eroded the trust of conservatives and institutions like the fbi. they feel mueller is on a witch hunt because the president has used the bully pulpit for that. when i speak to young conservatives, i'm often just confused by how it doesn't match up. it's illogical in their reasoning of supporting this president. they want to secure the border, but let's open the government. so different things like that when i hear different lines of

thinking none of it matches up. one thing is for sure. so many conservatives just want to support the president blindly, and they're starting to embrace him much like a king. we have an american president, not a king. they need to remember that. >> what is your reaction to that, joel? how do you feel about what rena said about the reaction to this and her, i guess, not even thinking anything is going to come of this in terms of damaging to the president or changing the way he practices things? >> sure. i mean, i think that actually speaks to how ridiculous the republican party was that they could be taken over by a donald trump. the fact that there's no core of that party. that shows you exactly how that happens. donald trump has systemically not just radicalized our policy, but he's also radicalized the people who stand with him in congress. i talked about this a little bit before. talking about immigration, he actually -- what the president wants to do is he wants to give himself a fire wall so that when it comes up that he's potentially talking about being

held accountable for his actions or talking about impeachment, he has a radical base of republicans in the senate and in the house who are going to be there to do his bidding. he doesn't want jeff flakes or susan collins. he wants people like tom cotton. he wants radical republicans who are going to hold his back and his the line. that's what this president has made clear with his actions. >> in light of all this, looking at the new poll numbers, 53% of americans are blaming the republicans and congressional republicans for the shutdown. listening, does that matter? is there a way out of this? does the president have no choice but to ride this out? where does this go? >> well, fundamentally, this is about the wall now. and 54% of americans oppose the wall. however, as joel mentioned, trump has radicalized his base such that 58% of his base supports the wall. and we're now seeing that it's

this anxiety about undocumented immigrants and racial anxiety about losing a racial majority in the country. and that fervor is part of what he -- president trump, continues to stir up when he talks about the wall and continues to dig in on the wall. and so we are going to continue to have -- be in a shutdown situation because he has dug in on this issue only speaking to his base. >> you know how i know the president is getting vote raced here? look at come tillis and cory gardener back home explaining why they're supporting this president. that's why you know the president is losing. you have moderate republicans getting their teeth kicked in back at home. >> thank you so much, all three of you. look forward to seeing you again soon. why the mueller probe will be the number one topic during this week's confirmation hearing during president trump's hearing for attorney general. that's up ahead. see a little blood when you brush or floss?

you may have gum disease and could be on a journey to much worse. try parodontax toothpaste. it's three times more effective at removing plaque, the main cause of bleeding gums. leave bleeding gums behind with parodontax toothpaste. we all make excuses for the things we don't want to do. but when it comes to colon cancer screening... i'm not doin' that. i eat plenty of kale. ahem, as i was saying... ...with cologuard, you don't need an excuse... all that prep? no thanks. that drink tastes horrible! but...there's no prep with cologuard...

i can't take the time off work. who has two days? and i feel fine - no symptoms! everybody, listen! all you need is a trip to the bathroom. if you're 50 or older and at average risk, cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92% of colon cancers. you just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab! this is your year! own it! cologuard is not right for everyone. it is not for high risk individuals, including those with a history of colon cancer or precancer, ibd, certain hereditary cancer syndromes, or a family history of colon cancer. ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers.

that's a wrap. i'll be book with you at noon. right now it's time for "up with david gura". good morning, david. >> this is "up". another bomb shell report from the washington post. president trump going out of his way to keep the details of his meetings with president putin secret including their one on one in helsinki. the president