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 responding to that report in the post late last night. >> i'm not keeping anything under wraps. anybody could have listened to that meeting. it's up for grabs. >> but the post report and "the new york times" story that the fbi's counterintelligence investigation into president trump makes you see events like this one in a whole new light. >> russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. >> the two-tireporter who broke story is going to join us. plus who is likely to be asked about the russia investigation, the president's pardon and maybe the southern border? >> i think that's overkill to put a barrier from one side of

the border to the other. >> it's sunday, january 13th, and bill barr is not the only one haunted by our tapes this weekend. >> if there's a concrete wall in front of you, go through it. >> up with us this morning, jill, a new america fellow and regular contributor to the new york times opinion section. two potentially game changing headlines back to back could put the spotlight back on the president's relationship with vladimir putin. on this, the 23 rd day of the government shutdown. the longest in history. . the post reporting that president trump concealed details of his meeting with putin from senior officials. the president at one point instructing his translator not to share what transpired. here's what president trump said on fox news last night. >> why not release the

conversation that you had with president putin in helsinki along with some other stuff that might involve the whole lot of them? >> well, i would. i don't care. i mean, i had a conversation like every president does. it was a great conversation. i'm not keeping anything under wraps. i couldn't care less. >> the post reporting contradicts the president. quote, u.s. officials said there's no detailed information of h t face to face interaction with the president and putin over five years. the fbi was looking into whether president trump was working on behalf of russia. joining us now from washington is gregg miller, national security correspondent for the washington post. without question, the by line of the day on this piece. gregg, help us understand the implications of this, if you would. remember that meeting in helsinki? seeing the interpreter of that with that paper. there was a little back and forth of whether or not members of congress were going to try to

get her on capitol hill to describe what she heard during that meeting. that never happened. express to us the import of what you're reporting today. >> the bottom line here is that this is really unprecedented behavior by an american president, at least by modern standards. every president that we've known in our lifetime has met with the russian leader, but almost always with senior aides, with multiple witnesses taking detailed notes. you can look through the ar archives and read verbatim transcripts. trump has a different approach. and the other part is he's in a different position as president. because russia worked so hard to put him there through the interference in the 2016 election. >> gregg, help us understand the implications of this. yes, there's an implication here for history. we're not going to go what was discussed in the piece you outlined. we're getting details of those conversations the president had

with boris yellsen. the staff has no idea what was agreed to? >> it creates confusion in an administration. and you've seen this all along. president trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to be favorable in his positions and policies toward vladimir putin, and you see his cabinet, his senior officials in the white house running around and trying to contain that. and this makes that gap worse. he's communicating with the russian leader, an adversary of the united states. his own advisers don't know what's transpiring in the meetings. what he's committing to and saying. >> gregg, great reporting. could you talk a little bit about the white house response and what you make of that? did they deny it outright, and what do you think about what they said to your report?

>> i'm not sure they deny it or what did sarah huckabee sanders say? this doesn't warrant a response, it's ridiculous. liberal media stuff. president trump said that meeting was wide open? in fact, he intentionally excluded his russia adviser in the white house and every other aide. he was alone with vladimir putin for two and a half hours in h d helsin helsinki. i was there covering this. nobody even at this point months later, we don't know what happened in that meet>ing. >> what's the rationale the president says for doing this. he likes one on one meetings with authoritarian leaders. why? >> i guess the most charitable interpretation is he thinks this is how he can work his magic. he believes he has this aura that he can make things happen

that senior aides, have that having an aide in the room changes that dynamic. of course, he doesn't listen to his aides or u.s. intelligence or pay much attention to what his briefers are telling him to try to get out of the meetings. and, of course, they're also concerned about leaks in this white house. and so he's taken these steps in some cases after some very embarrassing stories came out about president trump and russian officials. >> we'll get to those stories in a moment. we're looking at them differently in light of what you reported and what we saw in the times. >> gregg, where is rex tillerson fitting in into all of this. he's one of the only people who sat in at least one of the conversations with the president and mr. putin. >> as i said in the story, i quote rex tillerson. i exchanged e-mails with rex tillerson. he confirmed that he was president with trump for his meeting with putin in 2017. but then rex tillerson came out

and gave a press conference in which he talked about the fact that he described trump as having pressing the issue of the election interference during that meeting. pressing putin on that subject. that is at odds with the one detail that other white house officials were able to get out of that interpreter after. that interpreter, the one thing he was willing to share was that yes, putin denied having interfered in the election, and that trump's reply was i believe you. >> let's look back at recent history. i want to look at these together. there are moments in both of them that are the same. gregg talking about some of the meetings that took place. there was that oval office meeting in which lavrov was there with the then russian ambassador to the u.s. getting a tour by the president, and the president allows that it was a great relief not to have james comey around anymore. i talk about how our perspective on this investigation has shifted over the course of this weekend. how has the prism changed? >> i don't think it's changed

very much. my question is do republicans read your paper? i think this is just confirming what people already know about this man. he is somehow in ka hoots with russia and he doesn't want people to know about it. one of the reasons he's afraid -- this comes out every time he has a meeting. there's no communicating or readout. one of the reasons is we know he is personally a coward. we know personally and face to face he can't stand up to people. they probably -- he probably doesn't want people to see that play out in front of another foreign leader. but again, like this is just all the things that have happened this weekend are confirming what most people already know. the president is significantly compromised when it comes to his relationship with russia. the republicans do not seem to care. and if they don't care, then i don't know how this moves the ball forward. >> gregg, you talk about the five meetings. that's your focus when they met face to face. you allude to phone calls as

well. who is listening to them? the degree to which others may be privy to the conversations? is it as closely held as these meets? >> we know something about the calls. early in his presidency trump was -- at some points making calls that were sort of off the books in fact he was using his own phone and talking to world leaders and their aides. i think that general kelly and others have tried to impose for discipline and structure in the white house over the past year and a half and insisted that aides be able to listen in on important calls with putin. but we know that trump has had calls with putin in which he doesn't even follow the script of his senior aides, including after putin's sort of reelection and trump congratulates him which went directly against the advice that he was getting from h.r. mcmaster and others in the white house. >> jill, what do we do with all of this? there is the stupefy kags? gregg talking act what we've heard from former deputy

secretaries of state about how such disbelief they were that this was happening. you have eliot engel talking about how he wants to get to the bottom of this. where do we go from here learning what we've learned? >> i think one of the big challenges is it's a slow drip of sort of terrifying and awful news about this presidency. to the point where i think folks get pretty numb to it. i think republicans don't care because they're craven and just kind of want their guy in power. even among the rest of us who are at least moderately paying attention, it often feels like we're so close to finding that smoking gun and it doesn't quite some. it makes it easy to turn off. with a story like this, it's important to contextualize what it means. it's not just that trump broke protocol or somebody with no political or foreign policy experience is having one on one private conversations with the leader of a hostile foreign power. part of the presidency works by

having continuity. trump has interrupted that. he's walked back our international agreements. he's broken protocol. now he's having conversations with a foreign leader that whoever takes over the presidency next is not going to be able to read the notes or understand what was promised, what that relationship was. that's dangerous not just in the immediate term but in the long-term stability of our relationships with our allies and our enemies and our ability to be a world power. i think putting it in that context, making clear what huge ramifications this has not just in the immediate term but going forward is crucial to the great reporting gregg is doing. >> i saw a great report that "the washington post" returned the serve with this piece. how does that piece affect your perspective on this russia and the russia investigation more broadly. in other words, i'll have you comment on the opposing team. i know it's a friendly competition. >> it is a friendly competition most of the time.

i mean, i know those reporters on that story. they're terrific reporters. i think they do a great job, and i feel like "the new york times" and the post and many other news organizations including your own have done a lot of heavy lifting to try to help the public understand what is happening in the past year and a half or two years in terms of russia's interference in the united states' election and the trump administration's entanglement with the kremlin. and so that story was very eye opening. it showed you as you guys were just doesing a moment ago, those are jaw dropping things that come along that we learn about that we almost can't process adequately right now because we are so overwhelmed by this stuff. so the idea that the fbi is opening a counterintelligence investigation looking at the president himself, i mean, it's just an astonishing thing to

learn. >> gregg miller and his colleagues helping us make sense of this. author of "the apprentice". thank you very much, gregg. the calendar gets trickier and trickier. coming up, the deadlines that will only add more pressure for the president to cut a deal. >> folks, i could settle this thing in 15 minutes. i used to say 45 minutes. now i say 15 minutes. it's that simple. we need money for a barrier. rebekkah: opioids has taken everything and everyone i've ever loved away from me. everything. i blew my ankle out and i got prescribed pain pills by my doctor. if making my detox public is gonna help somebody i'm all for it. i just wish i would've had a warning.

tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management.

to help you grow and protect your wealth. ♪ [ dobaxter.ng ]

it's bedtime. peace of mind should never be out of reach. [ voice command beep ] xfinity home. xfinity home connects you to total home security you can control from anywhere on any device. and it protects you with 24/7 professional monitoring. i guess we're sleeping here tonight. xfinity home. simple. easy. awesome. call, go online or demo in an xfinity store today.

with the shutdown now entering the fourth week, i want to flag a few key dates. january 11th marked the first time about 800,000 federal workers missed their paychecks. january 12th it was the longest in u.s. history. president trump was scheduled to go to davos on january 21st. he cancelled that trip. the state of the union is coming up january 29th. one wonders what his assessment of the state of the union is going to be when he delivers the address. late january and february is the start of the tax season. the debt limit, here again, expiring on march 1st. this is the date, but the census p bureau is working all yearlong. let's turn to our panel here.

i'm going to turn to you. you've lived through how many of these? >> more than i'd like to count. >> what is the off ramp at this point? it seems legislatively there isn't one at this point. the president is claiming he has the right and ability to do this national emergency thing. yet, he hasn't. is there anything besides that you see that could end the shutdown. >> the only thing without president trump stressing the limits of authority. there's a republican controlled senate which somehow every time donald trump talks a about this, he leaves this out. there are bills that could end the shutdown. the other person we never hear from, we never hear what mitch mcconnell thinks or is doing. he seems to be in hiding. >> where is he? >> he's allowing the president to dictate his job. he's not moving forward on anything. he is letting the president say i will veto whatever so mitch mcconnell is not bringing up any

bills and not doing his job. there was reporting in the new york times that weeks before the shutdown happened mcconnell was trying to convince the president this was politically unwise. perhaps he's digging in in defiance because the president didn't listen to him or he knows it will go nowhere because the president won't move. but it really is this idea that he's leaving out that republicans obviously control the senate now and in his first two years as president they controlled the house and senate. and where they did get on the border wall? nowhere. the president is getting scared as he sees his base demanding what he promised. >> the snow continues to fall and we're getting this sad poetry from the president about the shutdown. i'm in the white house waiting for you he said to democratic leadership on twitter. what do you make of the way he has approached this. i've seen so much reporting about how he and his colleagues gave no thought whatsoever to what that would mean if there

was a shutdown and it continues weeks, months, years. >> the president is a malignant narcissist. that's the frame at which he looks through everything in his life. as federal workers are not getting their paychecks and going into debt and having to choose between paying the electricity bill or the water bill, the president is thinking about himself so lonely in the white house. it's going to be quite unseemly when he jets over to davos and is hanging out with the world's billionaires? . >> shouldn't have. >> we'll see if he goes. to have so many americans remaining out of work. at what point are air traffic controllers going to stop coming to work or the folks that keep this country running who often are not democratic activists. they're just federal workers trying to work a solid day's work, get a paycheck, do their job and help the functioning of this country. at what point are those folks going to just say you're not

keeping up your end of the bargain and we're stopping and that's going to grind the government to a stop? >> as the president tries to figure out what happens next, what's going to govern what happens next, where the shutdown gos? >> we're waiting for trump to realize he's not going to get his wall in the way he wants it and he's going to have to give something in order to get something. it can't end with this national security farce, this national emergency farce. people need to stop -- including people on this network need to stop acting like the national emergency thing is one option among many. it is not a political solution. it is the third reich was a democratically elected government operating under powers. they grabbed it when they had a fake fire and that was the reason to have a national emergency to grab a lot of the civil liberties, rushing powers of the reich.

people on twitter say why do you compare trump to the nazis so much? because he does what the nazis do. if you don't want to go for the reich, go to rome. caesar was acting under the national emergency of being arrested if he'd gone into rome. the other problem with the national emergency thing is the other side will do it. the democrats will do it when they have a chance. the democratic party is not coming out of this like brew tas. we're going to come out of this like mark anthony. if you want president kamala harris to declare a national emergency on climate change and seize mar-a-lago and turn it into a sand bar to protect florida? who says no. i'm not going to say no. this has to end politically. if it's going to, it has to end with donald trump understanding that if he wants something, he has to trade something to the democrats. >> let's give a little more grits to the bloggers.

you've spent some time in law school. >> a little bit. >> do you think there were legal grounds for him to do it? setting aside your analogy, your fear about the implications of this, is the president right when he says that he is able to do this? this is something he could do judge shopping on the 9th circuit? >> i agree the current national emergency act is written so vaguely to be able to justify about anything. even declaring a national emergency doesn't immediately suspend the constitution. one of the key issues with the wall is this legal jargon term called eminent domain. the federal government does not own all of the land on the border. right? it has to seize the land from private people who do not want to sell it. that's what we call a take-in. now the conservatives -- and i'm basically a republican when it comes to takings to be honest. >> this could be the best blog piece, whoever is writing this.

>>. >> conservative thought for the past 15 years has told us when the government tries to seize land without just compensation, it's a huge problem. even if he declares a national emergency, there is no such thing as military imminent domain. that's a lawsuit that goes to the supreme court. and as it is right now, i see it going 8 to 1 against him. kavanaugh sees the president as a monarch, but the rest of the conservatives, i don't see the conservative votes for this. even if he declares a national emergency, which he might have legal authority to do, that doesn't give him the legal authority to seize the land or do the other things. the national emergency doesn't allow him to impress slaves to build his wall. i think a wall will get him on the back end, if not the front end. a freshman congressman donating his paycheck to charity until it opens, he's with us

ahead. steve king's latest comments and the republican who says he'll challenge king says the lawmaker steve king is too caustic for iowa. >> king is very caustic, like bleach in that they both want to turn everything white. g inwhite. about 50% of people with evesevere asthma k? have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. eosinophils are a key cause of severe asthma. fasenra is designed to target and remove these cells. fasenra is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with asthma driven by eosinophils. fasenra is not a rescue medicine or for other eosinophilic conditions.

fasenra is proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, improve breathing, and can lower oral steroid use. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. haven't you missed enough? ask an asthma specialist about fasenra. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. (man) don't ...go...down...oh, no! aaaaballooned your car. call meeeee! (burke) a fly-by ballooning. seen it, covered it. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ 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.

welcome back to "up". growing backlash against steve king over remarks widely perceived as racist in an interview he said, quote, white nationalist, white supremacist, western civilization, how did that become offensive? the congressional black caucus calling on the republicans to strip him of his committee assignments. that statement from karen bass adding republicans should make clear king is no longer welcome in their party. anything less is a tacet acceptance of racism from the republican party. steve king tried to quiet the storm on friday in a speech on the house floor. >> under any fair political definition, i am simply an american nationalist. this conviction does not make me a white nationalist or a white supremacist.

so once again, i reject those labels and the ideology they define. >> the coded language there, nationalist. your reaction to what's transpired over the course of the week? >> it's not an apology and it's not not surprising. he's been caught on tape referring to immigrants as dirt. he's showing his true party. the republican party has been enabling this. and for all the statements of people, this is not right, there's never any substantive action to do anything to hold that person accountable. this is a guy who sits on the house judiciary committee. it is his job to help interpret and make the laws that govern our judicial process many of which are racist to people immigrants, minorities and poor. having a guy on this committee is an abomination. >> you mentioned the fact that republicans haven't spoken out against this in the past. tim scott in the washington post, why republicans accused of race snichl because we're silent

on things like this. are we at a turning point where republicans will be less silent on this? >> no. and it's not just saying something. it's doing something. why are republicans considered racist? because a lot of them are. look how many of them voted for trump. look at their policies and how they specifically impact and hurt minorities, the working poor in this country, immigrants. their rhetoric and policies all speak racism whether they call themselves that or not, that's the reality. >> also i'll say it's not helpful the only black republican senator is the one writing the op ed in the washington post. where are the white folks calling out the racism and why is only the cbc taking a stand? >> jill, i alluded to the fact that there was a republican who is going to challenge steve king. he was challenged by a democrat in the last election. he won handily. he won that race handily. what does that say about him and

his position in the republican party and about the republican party generally, the fact that that happened in the way in which it did? >> we've seen the republican party become the party of white men. that is -- i mean, for all the talk of how the democrats are the party of identity politics. democrats are trying to represent the whole party. democrats are targeting their message to this one subgroup. when you look at who votes for republicans, it is white people. it's white men more than white women, but it's a lot of white women too. they've run their races on racial an mouse and gender animus. steve king has been at the forefront of making that more obvious. and when you have a congressman asking what's wrong with white supremacy, that's not a questionably racist statement. that's him saying i am a racist, a white supremacist, and now what we're seeing is the republican saying i don't like that he said that. i don't like his words, but, you

know, that's bad. what are we to do? like you were saying, they're not taking action. they should throw the full weight of support behind his opponent. they should be working to strip him of any kind of positions of power that he has within the party and they should work on primarying him. i don't think you're going to see that. >> we're talking about this interview with steve king where he's wrestling with these terms. let's remind ourselves, and viewers of what steve king has said that led to the interview and talking about tissues with the congressman. here are some greatest hits, if you can call them that, from steve king. >> we could electrify this wire with the kind of current that wouldn't kill somebody but would be a discouragement for them to be fooling around with it. we do that with livestock all the time. >> for every valedictorian, there's another one that weighs 300 pounds and has calves the size of cantaloupes because

they're hauling marijuana. >> if we had done our job, we wouldn't have an anchor industry here in the united states. >> talk about stupefy kags in the first black. your reaction? >> i've been an african american male in this country for 40 years, as i am 40. and one of the things that i have learned is it's relatively easy to get white people to agree that you shouldn't sound racist. it is much harder to get white people to agree they shouldn't be racist. i do not care what he says. i care about his policies. when tim scott or joni ernst or others come out against what he says, they are allowing what he does. if they want to come out against white supremacy, some out against the bigoted wall that is steve king's signature policy. right now in new york state and new york city there is the first

trial about trump's trying to remove temporary protected status from haitian immigrants. you might remember that trump referred to haiti as an s-hole country. my father is from haiti. i root for the mets. i know the difference between a s-hole and not. where is tim scott to talk about this policy? this is the ethnic cleansing policy of the united states. where is tim scott on that? where iserne everyone on that. language is the only thing these people are willing to police. they're not willing to police the actions or the policies. >> all right. when we come back, the government shutdown confirmation hearings for the president's pick who the next attorney general is set to kick off on tuesday. how the revelations could effect

bill bar r's nomination, next. bill bar r's nomination, next. is staying happy and healthy. so, i add protein, vitamins and minerals to my diet with boost®. boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals your body needs. all with guaranteed great taste. the upside- i'm just getting started. boost® high protein be up for life. red lobster's new weekday five days.s here: five deals. for fifteen dollars get a different deal every weekday til six pm like endless shrimp monday admiral's feast tuesday four course feast wednesday and more. five days. five deals. fifteen dollars. see you before six.

every day, people are fighting type 2 diabetes with food, family and farxiga, the pill that starts with f. farxiga, along with diet and exercise, helps lower a1c in adults with type 2 diabetes. it's one pill a day. and although it's not a weight loss drug, it may help you lose weight. do not take if allergic to farxiga. if you experience symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking and seek medical help right away. do not take farxiga

if you have severe kidney problems, are on dialysis, or have bladder cancer. tell your doctor right away if you have blood or red color in your urine or pain while you urinate. farxiga can cause serious side effects, including dehydration, genital yeast infections in women and men, serious urinary tract infections, low blood sugar and kidney problems. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have signs of ketoacidosis, which is serious and may lead to death. ask your doctor about the pill that starts with f and visit farxiga.com for savings. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. if you can't afford your medication, 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.

welcome back to "up". president trump firing back this weekend at what the new york times reported that the fbi launched a counterintelligence investigation into the president after he fired james comey. bill barr could be in for a tough line of questioning after

this memo he sent to rosenstein surfaced. he criticizes the investigation and questions whether the special counsel can ask the president about obstruction of justice. also setting off alarm bills his record as attorney general. he'll have to pick a new deputy. rosenstein plans to step down soon. senate republicans saying bill barr would not get in robert mueller's way. >> i asked mr. barr directly do you think mr. mueller's on a witch hunt. he said no. do you think he would be fair to the president and the country as a whole? he said yes. and do you see any reason for mr. mueller's investigation to be stopped? he said no. >> i want to start with the lawyers on my left. jill, you first. i mentioned this memo. 20 pages in length. i'm struck by how odd it seems. you have a former attorney general in private practice now thinking well enough of himself to write a letter advising the

deputy attorney on what he can or cannot do. >> barr that has an expansive view of executive power. that's something developing on the right over the past couple decades. what trump is doing is stacking the deck in his favor. we saw with at kavanaugh appointment. kavanaugh has the perspective the president has virtually unlimited power. so barr has made explicit that trump can do pretty much all the things trump would want to do to underp undercut this investigation. he can interfere without consequence and pardon and offer a pardon to folks that mueller otherwise might be able to flip or to work on. so by putting barr up, trump is sending a very clear signal that a, he believes that the senate is going to back him on this. he knows that his kind of republican compatriots will allow him to essentially install

someone who will make it so there are virtually zero consequences for anything he's done wrong. and b, i think he's also sending the message that he just doesn't care about even the kind of baseline appearance of propriety and fairness. in the past presidents are typically careful about the optics of who they appoint to roles like this. granted, we're in unprecedented times. there's a sense of what we want appoint somebody fair minded maybe from the other party but fairly moderate. that's the robert mueller story. and what you see here is the opposite of that. you see trump saying i'm going to appoint someone who is the most extreme on this particular issue that is to my ben fete. it's directly out of his play book, but it's disturenning that senate republicans, we can guess in advance, are not really going to do much to sometimetymy the to stack the deck.

>> the fbi opened an inquiry onto whether the president was working on behalf of russia. some opened the paper and said having that expansive view of executive power might be -- >> we know for sure look agent the pattern of behavior from senate republicans that they are not willing to deviate from the president in most cases even in cases that most people consider extreme, they stand by his side, and our reporting we talked to folks inside trump world. they said they're going to try to use this new york times story about the fbi investigation to paint the fbi as corrupt and specifically anti-trump. that's what they've done with the department of justice. this is what they say they're going to do with the fbi. it's fascinating. instead of being bothered by it or trying to deny the content of the article which he did last night in his interview with fox news, he didn't say no, i'm not a russian agent. he said this is insulting.

they're going to use it to undermine the efforts of the fbi. that's dangerous for democracy. >> there's also the issue about the pardon power. when sniveling rip krhypocrite y graham says he sees no reason why barr would stop the investigation, that may or may not be true, but the sque what is he not asking in he's not asking about the president's pardon power. we're pretty sure the next thing down the pipe is an indictment of trump's children, and as i think rachel laid it down on friday, bill barr is mr. pardon and helped bush pardon something auto out of existence. he's going to be the guy in trump's ear to pardon manafort and michael cohen, will pardon don junior and ivanka. those are the kinds of things that allow lindsey graham to out

of one side of his face say oh, nothing is wrong here, but out of the other side of his face allow trump to completely destroy the mueller investigation regardless of who is indicted after. >> let me get mark warner. there's a clip of him talking about iran contra and his bill barr's first turn as attorney general. >> the fact that he in a sense sent this job application brief into the president, into the justice department, in a sense saying, hey, i'm with you in terms of his view that the mueller investigation should be suspect, doesn't have appropriate power, that the president above the law. in my mind, that in and of itself should be disqualifying. he should bit drwithdraw his na. >> a column written about this. one line stood out. this is the question he thinks every senator should be asking bill barr.

under what circumstances would barr advise the president to pardon the targets of mueller's investigation. what do you think these hearing are going to be like broadly speaking in do you think it's going to be almost wholly focussed on this? what are you expecting out of republicans? >> republicans are going to do everything they can to try to talk up this guy's predcredenti and pedigree. they're going to make him look like the most consistent, traditional pick the president has had. democrats will hone in on what does he think about executive authority and pardon authority. president trump is going to try to silence this report. whatever mueller does, whatever report he releases, this attorney general is going to be asked by trump to try to silence it and make sure the people never see it. if the president uses executive privilege to say no one can see this report until we have and even rudy giuliani who the other day said the president should be able to edit the report and fact check it and make it truthful,

that is the focal point of the hearing. they are taking over your social media feeds. how the political overshare could be a staple of the 2020 campaign. will it backfire? that's next. will it backfire that's next.

your brain changes as you get older. 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. . welcome back to "up." i'm david gura. politicians are using social

media to reach young people, or trying to. elizabeth warren getting votes not coming from her visit in iowa, but from this live video she shot where she had a beer and she called club soda beers. i think it was a michelob ultra. willie castro livestreaming his bus ride to the airport where he says he's running for president in 2020. you've taken stock. you'll read one great line from your piece. appearing on social media is natural for a 429-year-old but not for an older person.

it's not so natural for those who look like they could be your parents or grandparents. >> i'm not against it, but it's not so natural, like elizabeth warren drinking a beer when she doesn't usually drink them. they're looking at alexandria ocacio-cortez, but she looks natural because it is. i'm more of the mind for these politicians who run in 2020 and minestream their lives, the weaker their campaign will get. he said to me social media is this great equalizer, you don't have to have the biggest name recognition or be the biggest candidate to break through on social. i think that's what we're seeing taking shape this early in the

cycle, especially in 2016 when president trump sort of unharnessed twitter where no other president had done that before. >> you write about a definite pivotal point when it comes to power generally, and you bring up alexandria ocacio-cortez and others, nancy pelosi who you said will sit behind president trump on the 29th. i'll read one line from your piece as well. changing the way we tell the stories of how people achieve political power is much bigger than just more honest candidate autobiographies or triumphant instagram captions. it has the power to change the outcome of what those in power do. >> one of the things i find most interesting is seeing how the new congresswomen talk about their origin stories. a typical story of how one achieves political power in the u.s. is kind of a bootstrap story. it's usually a man, a white man, and he worked hard and built

power himself. to the extent that he talks about the other aspects of his life, a family, children -- family and children. there is sort of this assumption that the powerful man is beneficial to that family unit, not that that family unit enabled his rise. and it's been really interesting to watch folks like alexandria ocacio-cortez, like omar, really frame the power on where they are on this physical trajectory. alexandria talks a lot about the women who came before her. she clearly sees herself as one data point on a longer path toward equality. and other congresswomen will talk about how their family has really helped them get to where they are. ilhan omar who was born in somalia and raised in a refugee camp in kenya and is now a congresswoman has really talked about how her family helped her get to this point. there was this entire ecosystem

behind her that got her here. that's a more authentic story. that is true of all the men who have ever held power as well. but that's not the story they told. i think more you see women talking about community and collaborative efforts to raise individuals up, the more honest our sort of political discourse is, and the more we understand that these kind of community efforts need to be supported if we want everyone to succeed. i think that's an incredibly powerful shift. >> great to have you all here. timewise we have to go. >> i think people want to see elizabeth warren do more than coat switch down to cardi b. the lengths the president went to keep that a secret and charity until the shutdown ends. max rose in the next hour.

welcome back to "up." i'm david gura continuing to marvel at in amazing piece in the "washington post" which broke overnight. president trump con sealing details from his meetings with president putin, concealing those details from members of his own association. at one point they took possession of the notes of his interpre