welcome to "kasie dc." i'm kasie hunt. we are live from snowy washington from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. eastern. tonight, we know when the mueller investigation is likely to end and now we know how a big part of the fbi investigation began. we're going to go inside that "new york times" bombshell about a counterintelligence probe into president trump. as "the washington post" reports, the president went to great lengths to conceal what he and vladimir putin talk about. plus, stop me from you heard this one before. the government is closed.

tonight the halls of congress are dark as thousands of american workers and their families are suffering. but first, this weekend brought with it two headlines that are stunning, even in the context of a presidency that has left all of us somewhat immune to shock. the first came from "the new york times," which reports that in the days after james comey's firing, fbi officials became so concerned by president trump's behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of russia and against american interests. after that story broke, sam stein wrote on twitter, what this does likely mean is sometimes soon a reporter is going to straight-up going to have to ask trump, are you a russian asset? and it will be a legit question. well, last night in the friendliest of media confines for this president, somebody did. >> i'm going to ask you, 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. >> not a yes and not a no. as for that second blockbuster headline, "the washington post" reports that the president has gone to, quote, extraordinary lengths to conceal conversations with russian president vladimir putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter in instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials. here's how the president responded to that report last night. >> i'm not keeping anything under wraps. i couldn't care less. i have a one-on-one meeting with putin like i do with every other leader. i have many one on one. nobody ever says anything about it but with putin they say oh, what did they talk about? we talked about very positive things. anybody could have listened to that meeting. that meeting is open for grabs. >> with that i would like to welcome in my panel with me here on set, washington anchor for bbc world news, katty kay. she's co-author of the book "the confidence code for girls." also with us justice reporter

julia ainsley and former chief of staff at the cia and department of defense, also msnbc national security analyst, jeremy bash. and in birmingham, alabama, former u.s. attorney and msnbc contributor joyce vance. it's great to have you to talk about a very momentous weekend in news. jeremy, i want to start with you and just from kind of a broad perspective, did this headline and news about the counterintelligence investigation, should it change how we view the mueller investigation overall? >> not really. it was always a counterintelligence and criminal investigation. the real question at the heart of the inquiry was what leverage does russia have over our president, financial leverage and ultimately physical rev ladies and gentlemen? and to help us answer the question, why do we have a foreign policy that seems to make no sense, why do we have a president that seemed so pro-putin? and this is the issue "the new york times" raises, what do we do as a constitutional matter if the commander in chief under

article two of our constitution was responsible for foreign relations and who is responsible for national security, what if he is working against the giants of the united states? there really is no criminal end to that inquiry. so at the end of the day i think where this is all going, this is a question for congress. this is a political question ultimately about impeaching, as whether this president is fit to serve as leader of the united states. >> julie, you agree? >> the other thing i keep thinking about is the reporting months ago that trump told him he kept thinking mueller said he was a target of the investigation. i'm wondering if he's piecing words a little bit. if the mueller probe could wrap and that would be focus odd and collusion. that was the memo rosenstein gave to mueller when he hired him but it could still continue with this counterintelligence aspect because that could sound national security. it continues not just what trump did as a candidate but more focused on his role at the white house. it's things like pulling out of syria, some things are

unexplained, like the helsinki conference, the conversations he with president putin. it's putting all of that in a different light. and then i agree, it comes down to politics at the end of the day. and you know well more than any of us how democrats are preparing for that possible. >> katty kay, that's an excellent point about the policy decisions that had been made in this administration that seemed to line up with the fact the president is interested in helping russia instead of treating them like an adversary. >> it's more what the president said than he has done. he spent the first half of his presidency backing away with from criticizing vladimir putin or russia. yet sanctions on russia have been toughened. sanctions on people close to president putin have been toughened as kwl. so the president is in some ways right when he tweets i have been tougher on russia. in a way he's right, he has stepped up sanctions and they are starting to bite around president putin.

but it's the way this president is so very luck tant to criticize vladimir putin and the conjunction of these to stories there's a president hiding effectively some of the things he said with president putin, asking translator not even to disclose them to his own aides in the white house, in conjunction with bob mueller is investigating. >> while often undermining nato in other institutions while he's at it. >> and the european union, which is what president putin wants to do and say russians were behind the meddling in the 2016 election. for his reasons he doesn't want to show he didn't win the 2016 election bhimself with these big rallies and it was his popularity contest. he doesn't want to concede it was russia who might have been engaged in that but he's very leery of saying russia is the ones who helped him >> just to get a sense of what's going on behind the scenes at the fbi and minds of the prosecutors he justice department and others as this was unfolding and they're

watching this happen and they actually undertook the decision to launch a counterintelligence investigation into a sitting american president, mine that is a remarkable and stunning move. what do you read into it? >> any time you're making a decision as a prosecutor to open a case, just a criminal investigation into any sort of a political figure, whether it's a mayor, a senator, a governor or as in this case praise, all of the concerns that you have in a normal case are heightened and the reason for that are these rule of law principle that's we talk about so much. doj prides itself on ensuring that there's no hypothetical of political an amoss in its work so always there's a constant inquiry to make sure we are doing this because there's predcation for an investigation, not because someone is on the outs with someone else, which would, of course, be improper. when you're looking at a counterintelligence case involving the president, all of those concerns are heightened.

and for the fbi to decide to take this kind of a step, they must have been looking at signals intelligence and other information that gave them a really credible fear that the country was in peril and that they were in essence obligated to open the investigation, that walking away from it would have been irresponsible. >> so two of president trump's allies came to his defense this morning. they were suggesting that "the new york times" report may be worse news for the nba than for the president. >> it tells me a lot about the people running the fbi, a cave in that crowd. i don't trust him as far as i throw him. what i want to do is make sure how can the fbi do that? what kind of checks and balances are there? >> if i were the president, i would embrace the story. it backs up his narrative. his narrative is fbi agents were acting in a rogue manner, zwroefrping the normal course of business because they had something against him.

>> jeremy bash, your take on that. >> i think the best argument for republicans like lindsey graham and christie is the fbi cannot investigate a commander in chief for being a counterintelligence threat because only the president can set the direction of american foreign policy. however, that line of argumentation will lead them to the exact place that democrats want to go, which is then therefore this is an issue for corning and an impeachment inquiry. in fact, the mueller investigation is only going to take us so far. it's going to lay a factual predicate but tend of the day, only congress can decide if the president is accounting in a way that ee anymore cal to the american foreign policy. >> i take your point for sure. but at what point were they and woderring if perhaps he was a russian agent unwittingly, doing it without knowing? >> you can be the target of an fbi counterintelligence investigation even if you did ostensibly nothing wrong, if you came under the influence of foreign power unwittingly. because what the fbi fundamentally wants to know is what leverage does a foreign

policy have over you? what is a foreign policy doing to affect the national security of the united states? but criminal investigations have a beginning, middle and end. the threshold, do we open the case? the middle, have the egs, the end, chargers or no charges. the national security terrorism allegations, there a threshold, open the case, middle, and the end -- there is no end. the end is a foreign policy decision. for, again, our constitutional systems, the way we grap well a foreign policy threat by a president is impeachment. >> it does make you wonder when jim comey testified and said you can be somebody who betrayed your country unwittingly, you may not even know you have done that. you wonder whether he was referring to something in particular that he knew about, in light of these reports this weekend. there was a striking bit of his testimony that he chose to say that before congress and you wonder what he was referring to. >> we're seeing everything through a different lens. i'm looking back at how rod rosenstein behaved at this time and we did reporting last spring that shed light on where he was at this time. he was talking to people in the

fbi, people he worked with, and he really wanted to get back into a place where they trusted him again. he was worried about his own fbi and fbi's credibility. then he took this 180 saying here i stand. if trump fires me, fine when he came under all of that heat. but for a while there, we saw more of an emotional rod rosenstein, at least people saying that knew him well and now think about the position he was in. if he had been asked to wear a wire. if he had been asked to come up with a fake reason for firing jim comey. all of these things were on him. if he knew about this investigation at the same time, which we can assume he did. that was all combining all of that pressure on him at the same time. >> just to sort of put a finer point on it, in the context of this counterintelligence investigation, weren't these agents who were working on that concern that rosenstein had himself been compromised? >> that's what michael schiff was saying on "meet the press" today, right? they were worried they had people at the top of their

agency who were now making up reasons that didn't go along with what the president was publicly saying. so what does that mean? what had transpired in that bedminster meeting to bring rod rosenstein to that position. >> how do you view rosenstein's role in this? there have been a lot of democrats in the past week about his plans to leave. he's clearly become somebody they have entrusted to protect the mueller investigation, but as we've been talking about here, that wasn't perhaps always the case. >> i imagine the early weeks of the trump presidency were fairly frantic signed of the justice department. there was an entire set of expectations and administration as administrations occurred, trump would stabilize, would become more presidential. and so although we don't know all of the details and particularly the details of how the memo that rosenstein wrote, which argued that comey should

be fired based on his violation of doj norms during the clinton administration, we don't know how that all played out. but when supposedly here he thought he was briefing a president in good faith and suddenly it became clear to him that the president had an entirely different set of assumptions and goals, and that following comey's firing, there's this dramatic moment that we learn about from russian news sources where the president had had the russian ambassador inside of the oval office, and he's talking with him there about firing comey to take off the pressure, i think there's an interesting story there that we will learn about hopefully at the end of this, because obviously, we're all extremely curious but rosenstein had a transition at some point in all of this where he perhaps matured as a deputy attorney general. and became a figure that was uncompromising and in support of the mueller investigation. clearly, he learned information that told him that there was a strong need for this type of a

process inside of doj and fbi. >> very interesting. we have a lot more to come here on "kasie dc," including the very latest on the longest shutdown in american history. >> how long are you willing to let this shutdown last, mr. president? >> whatever it takes. no one has any idea how to reopen the government and we're seeing real pain for thousands of american workers. and we're going to take you through every plan the president tried and failed so far to get a borter wall built. i will speak for the spokesman for michael cohen ahead of his testimony in congress.

show of hands, who's a future comcast business customer here? i think we all are. yeah, definitely. sign us up. yes. two hands. two hands. yay. double hands. get fast reliable internet and add voice for a low price. just one more way we go beyond for your business. and now you can also enter for a chance to win $10,000 from comcast business toget your year off to a fast start. there's a new $10,000 winner every day in january. go online now and enter for a chance to win. comcast business. beyond fast.

as we come on the air, no one knows how or when the government will reopen and the sticking point remains the same, funding for the border wall. but the solution to that problem used to be so simple. >> i will build a great, great

wall on our southern border, and i will have mexico pay for that wall. mark my words. >> hmm, and then political reality got in the way. and once the president took office, the administration offered up a plan b. >> a plan that's taking shape now using comprehensive tax reform as a means to tax imports from countries that we have a trade deficit from like mexico, we have a few taxed at 50%, $50 billion of 20% of imports, by doing it that way we can do $10 billion a year and easily pay for the wall through that mechanism alone. >> those comments sparked a bipartisan republic yore and hours later sean spicer said that idea was just one that the president was considering, which brings us to plan c, having congress flip the bill. >> we need border security. that's what we're going to be talking about border security. if we don't have border security, we'll shut down the

government. this country needs border security. the wall is a part of border security. >> just to be clear, by congress we mean they're spending your money on the wall in theory, but, of course, we know how all of it is working out. enter plan d, money from a new trade deal, kind of, sort of paying for the wall. the president tweeting on friday, quote, we just signed a great new trade deal with mexico. it is billions dollars a year, better than the very bad nafta bill it replaces. the difference paces for the wall many times over. the only problem, congress has not passed the mca yet and if it does, it's not at all clear any additional revenue or savings aft exists or b, would be used for the wall funding. that brings us to the absolute plan e. >> 40 hours ago you were said you were probably going to declare a national emergency. >> no, i said i could do it of the but i'll tell you what, it's the easy way out but congress should do this. this is too simple.

it's too basic. if they can't do it, i will declare a national emergency. >> so no emergency either, at least not yet. still with no clear path to funding in sight, the president appears as confident as ever. >> you have to take the politics out of this, and we have to get down to business. the numbers will be incredible if we get it done, and we will get it done. one way or another, we will get it done. >> joining me now is former republican congressman ryan costello of pennsylvania. the panel is still here as well. congressman, former congressman, excuse me, it's good to see you. i am back to the question that i feel like we've been all asking ourselves for the last week at least, if not longer, but considering the round and round we've gone the last week, how the hell do we get out of this? >> there's going to have to be an emergency declaration by the president i think for the president to save face and for him to assuage the base because

i don't see democrats coming to the table. i know that the republicans' next message is going to be that the republicans are here to open the government, and the democrat want open borders. i don't think that will push democrats to get off their position. the president really, fully is committed to want the base thinks, and i think the base has been very, very loyal and very, very vicious in attacking anybody who goes after the president, and that's where the president loyalty lies. and i think following that interview last night, there was even some commentary that said that they view the president holding the line on this and fighting for the wall as the most important thing in his presidency. and i think believed that.

i don't believe that but i think he believes that. i don't see either party moving off here so i think the only exit strategy to get the government back open is for him to do an emergency declaration. >> that's something though that many republicans in congress have said is a no-go. take a look, here's what mitt romney, what of many republicans carrying this message, said this week. >> how is the president handling this? nancy pelosi has accused him of acting like a petulant child in the negotiations. could you support reopening the government before supporting the border wall question? >> i think our democrat friends have painted themselves into a corner. they voted for border walls in the past, some 600-plus miles of border walls but the president is willing to work with them as long as they recognize, hey, we need border security. i theys something most americans agree to. i hope we will see nancy pelosi and chuck schumer final politic progress looking for common ground. >> later on in the interview, he also said he doesn't support a national emergency. congressman, what happens in that event? do you see a fwhorld which the right wing media, rush limbaugh, backers on fox news, for

example, would they support him doing a national emergency while the rest of the party goes against him? >> yes, they would. look, i don't think this -- i can understand why senator romney and others feel that way. i'm not suggesting that i would feel that way but for the simple question, how do you get out of this? if the president opens the government back up without border security money, the right wing will go nuts. at the same point in times, if democrats in congress, if pelosi puts a bill on the floor and they're forced to vote for funding, their base is going to go nuts. so as a consequence of each being driven by each party's base. republicans are right, look, democrats have voted for border security in the past but the past is the past. look, foyer got all about sean spicer. i totally forgot about him until you brought that quote up.

>> our producer did not. >> we had plan a, b, c, d, e, f and g to pay for it. we're beyond all of that. we're in a shutdown and how do you get out of it? that's the only way to be candid, i don't see any party bending on this. >> i don't see either party bending either. julia, this past week it seemed to be trying to change the way they're making this argument, right? and say this is a humanitarian and security crisis, which was kind of news to us because we had not really heard that before. >> they dropped the t word. we heard terrorist a lot the week before, started to fact-check that a little bit, chris wallace fact-checked sarah sanders huckabee a week ago saying it wasn't 4,000 terrorists crossing the border but actually 6. but all of that means that they did pivot on the argument. we saw with the president's

address, here's why we need a wall, it's humanitarian. but that falls apart too, kasie. if there's a humanitarian cry circumstance it's because there are asylum-seekers trying to flee violence and poverty and come to the united states. asylum seekers come here and that does nothing about a wall. we had higher numbers of undocumented immigrants coming to our southern border in the obama administration and far higher in the early 2000s. the only thing that changed is asylum seekers. the other allegation is a nuance to cover and i like getting into that but the wall nullifies it all because you get down to one symbol and both sides polarized. >> that's exactly what it seems this fight has become. it hasn't really sitting in the white house officials, vice president came up to capitol hill and said they're talking

about nitty-gritty details but both sides have simply become a symbol. >> i think for the white house's point of view, the indication has a symbol is the argument keeps changing. first terrorists and then drugs. one trump aid or ally i spoke to this week said, yeah, we need the wall anyway because although they come through legal ports of entry, when we clamp down on the legal ports of entry access, they will try to find other way they will need the wall. >> so their own policy is causing the problem, self-inflicted. >> i think it's an indication it's about the wall for the president, not actually about the facts on the ground, which is what will be the best thing, which effectively a wallboarder agents say is low on their list and why democrats are looking at canada and say, look, if this is about terrorism, we should put the wall around canada. the only terrorists to come across came through the canadian border, not the mexican one.

so the democrats are trying to box the president in saying it's about the policy, not practicality of the wall. >> there's been polling that has gone on about suburban voters. a cnn poll of college-educated whites and trump policies, 64% disapprove of trump's overall performance. 63 oppose the border wall with mexico. 63% blame trump for the shutdown. 57% say the border is not a crisis. what does this president's focus on the wall have on a republican party as a whole? you know better than anybody the impact this has had in sigh sue bourbon america. >> you're statistics sound 100% right and a lot of us saw this coming. i think what this has done more than anything is given an opportunity for democrats to consolidate, not really look too

much at their divisions and be viewed as responsible in terms of just wanting to open up the government and the argument over whether or not we need more of a border wall has really fallen on deaf ears. i think the middle of the country and suburban america doesn't think that any ideological battle -- and i think that in some respects this is an ideological battle, no matter which side you're on. they don't feel you should shut the government down over these sorts of things. i'll give you an example, look at scott gottlieb's twitter feed. there's an administrator who every single day has to put out 10, 15 new updates on what you're allowed to file, what you can't file, how they're shifting resources around. and every single administrator in every single department has to do that sort of stuff. we may talk a little bit about what had to be done with the mortgage industry in order to make sure homeowners or home purchasers are able to get to the settlement table.

imagine selling your house or having another house under agreement and you may not be able to go to settlement because your income verification is not able to be reviewed by the irs. a government shutdown hurts so many people in this country and middle america realizes that. and they don't think no matter where you feel on whether we need more wall or no more wall or technology or whatever it is, you don't shut the government down over that. and whomever they assign blame to, their numbers are going to go down and that's what happened here. >> smart points all. when we come back, we'll talk about controversial polling of the election that caught the eyes of counsel. and elizabeth warren, what is she doing to get an edge among a crowded field of democrats, and will it be enough? that's tonight 9:00 p.m. eastern here on msnbc. around here, nobody ever does it

really? i didn't do it so when i heard they added ultra oxi to the cleaning power of tide, i knew it was just what we needed so now we can undo all the tough stains that nobody did dad? i didn't do it it's got to be tide

welcome back. that bombshell report from "the new york times" about an fbi investigation into whether president trump was secretly working for russia has overshadowed other potentially important information out of the mueller probe.

this including if he shared 2016 polling data with kilimnik, who the fbi said has ties to the russian intelligence. according to the unredacted filing, the special counsel alleged manafort lied about sharing the polling with clin nick. the source of the data and whether or not it came from the trump campaign is still unclear. the document also gave no indication whether president trump was aware of manafort transferring the data and didn't specify how kilimnik might have used it. we do know manafort and his deputy rick gates asked kilimnik to give it to the uen cran oligarchs, who financed russian-backed political parties. george vance, let me start with you on this, how can something like this potentially or could it potentially implicate the president more broadly having hired paul manafort, having him

run the campaign, or is that connection not strong enough for that to be an issue? >> i think the short answer is we don't know. mueller likely has a lot of information that's not publicly available but it's pretty interesting to me manafort, whose best protection here would have been to tell mueller's team everything that he knew, that was his one guarantee of getting favorable treatment at sentencing, there was something here that was so important that he had to protect it. i think that certainly could have been other people who knew what he was up to. >> jeremy bash, what do you make of this manafort development? how important do you think it is in this broader context? we were talking off camera about other things you think play into this narrative this week. >> i think in terms of the manafort convenientment, look, if the information was public polling data, they wouldn't have to share it in the sensitive channel. they could have read it in the

newspaper. it seems more than likely it was pry .tory analysis the way they viewed the electorate and opportunities to shape it and that ultimately in the hands of the russian gru intelligence service -- >> trying to influence it. >> they could have used it to shape their social media campaign. i think it's directly in the way russia tried to interfere. if, of course, the president knew about it, he would bear some of the ultimate responsibility for it. i think there's a big question whether joyce and others could owe bien on is if mere knowledge, giving a heads-up to the president is enough to implicate him. we think he possibly got a head of the trump tower meeting but how much he directed it, we don't know yet. >> the other thing i'm thinking about is how much irrational, seemingly rational decisions paul manafort made during this entire scheme. first of all, even with being in

pretty bad financial straits went to work as a volunteer for the trump campaign. then he would have handed this over. why would he do that without talking to the campaign. that would seem a little irrational to me. and fast forward to what we've seen him do now to wait until he gets a -- go all the way through trial and then agree to cooperate, and then not be fully cooperative, when i was in court with watching him and his lawyers just a month ago, his lawyers said we don't even know what he lied about and if he intentionally did so, we need more time with our client. it's not clear he had the full picture. he could be lying to his lawyers too. >> manafort has a very long history of relationships with sleazy people, in dubious bits of the world. >> and out for himself. >> and he's been out for himself and he was in debt millions of dollars to some of those people. i think the question here is one of motivation, was manafort trying to show these people he was close to trump and therefore could give them access? that would suggest manafort was, as you say, out for himself, or was he doing it in order to try to give the gru information they could use in a social immediate ka campaign with a little intention? that might suggest there was a broader concept in the campaign of wanting to collude with the russians and did trump know about it? given manafort's own past record

on this and his often past of looking out for himself and trying to look out for himself, not perhaps very well, i don't think we can assume from this trump knew and there was some coordinated effort to give the gru information. >> and perhaps the republicans had leverage over paul manafort as well. congressman costello, can we talk briefly about the political implications here? at what point do republicans decide this is all too much? we've seen obviously the ones that are left in the house are more pro-trump than they were a couple of months ago. but does at some point there just get to be too much here? >> i think that michael cohen hearing coming up and some other oversight and judiciary committee hearings that will likely ensue probably will elicit testimony that factually will really be put on the lap of every single member in both parties but your question was oriented towards republicans, where you're probably going to

get a lot more direct answers than before. and that is because as this investigation has unearthed more information and more time has evolved, more information has come out, more answers have been given and especially as i think we're about to receive some -- there's some indication mueller will come out with something some time soon, there will just be enough out there. i think many republicans, myself included, didn't want to jump the gun. you want an investigation to unfold. i always found very interesting now some democrats are asking should trump be impeached? and many democratic members are saying what republican members have for the last nine months, let's wait for the mueller report to come out. to answer your question directly, i think you'll get more candid answer from republicans but i think that will also be likely because more information has just come to the fold in the past several months. >> all right. we shall see. ryan costello, katty kay, julia ainsley, jeremy bash, joyce vance, thank you all so much for being here tonight.

>> when we come back, i will talk to adam kinzinger about the report the president has gone through extraordinary lengths with vladimir putin. and what it will take to get government back open.

secretary of state mike pompeo is in the midst of an eight-century tour through the middle east. this morning he arrived in saudi

arabia, where he's expected to have a sit-down with saudi prince mohammad bin salman, possibly tomorrow. they will likely discuss the killing of journalist jamal khashoggi, who u.s. intelligence officials determined was murdered at the behest of the crown prince. but in an interview with ale arabiya, pompeo said the, quote, mutually beneficial relationship with both countries, quote, must go forward. joining me now is republican councilman adam kinzinger and member of the house committee on foreign affairs. thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> what's your response to what pompeo said so far overseas? he also said that the relationship essentially predates the killing of jamal khashoggi and must go forward? >> i agree with him the khashoggi killing is terrible and needs to be called out with clear eyes. i was critical for the administration for not doing that. when it comes to things like politics, especially in areas in

the middle east, we have to deal with bad actors sometimes. this is a case with saudi arabia there are a lot of things we would like to change, but when you're looking at who to deal with, it's going to be saudi arabia or iran and i could point out half a dead syrians that iran is backing the regime that is doing this. so there's nothing pretty there. i hope they are more clie-eyed about it this time but we have to move forward with this relationship. >> i'm glad you brought up syria, because the president has been claiming that the u.s. has won against isis. there's even been a suggestion that the president doesn't necessarily think that this is an important idea for the use. he said, you know, he's opposed to endless wars. what is your take on the president's latest rhetoric around this? >> i think it's wrong. if you look at the facts, nobody's calling for another 150,000 troops in syria. only one hand people say we need to fight war a different way. let's use the people who are

gnattive there there on the ground. let's use special forces. when we do that, which we were doing in syria quite successfully, to turn around and say we're tired of wars and have to leave. i have not seen riots on the streets of washington, d.c. saying get out of syria. you can embolden eyous saying we just defeated the united states' will. you are also in good blocking position for iran. the united states is trying to say we will soon have troops in iraq and we can strike and that's true, but i think the downside of pulling out of syria is much bigger. i want to get out of syria but we have to do it at the right time when the caliphate is crushed and iran is out of syria. >> i want to ask you and this plays into the syria question, honestly, the russians and their potential influence over president trump. we saw the bombshell report from "the new york times" but i would like to ask you about "the

washington post's" report that the president has been concealing his conversations with vladimir putin from top u.s. officials. as a member of congress, does that concern you? no one in the u.s. government is apparently able to access any records of these conversations? >> yeah, it does. i understand though 0 sometimes there's two sides to every story so i want to get more information but if what they're reporting is pretty much the story, it is concerning. does the president have a right to conceal these conversations? probably. but i don't think it's the right thing to do. vladimir putin is an enemy of the united states. this administration in many ways has been pretty aggressive against the russians but this is something i just don't quite understand there's this hesitancy to attack vladimir putin personally. i want to get all of the information but it certainly would not make me happy if that's in fact what's going on. >> what do you make of the fbi's decision to announce this counterintelligence investigation?

do you think it was an overstep on the part of the fbi, or does it concern you that they felt the need to go that route? >> i guess you can kind of look at it either way. we will know a lot more when the mueller report comes out in terms of what was known or what they were trying to find out. in terms of launching the investigation, my first reaction was massive overstep but i think there's a lot more information on that too. i always try to be not quick making judgment calls on something like that but we will see. the mueller report, we need patients to get this come out. it will give a lot of indication. frankly, this could be eye-opening in some areas or some people could look at this and say wow, that was a two-year investigation and we didn't get anything out of it. >> mueller's reputation, we will see, congressman. let me shift gears for a second and ask you about one of your colleagues in the house, steve king, who made reprehensible comments about white nationalism and white supremacy. do you think your leaders in the house should take official action, perhaps censure him?

>> absolutely. there's no place for that in the republican party. there's no place for that in the u.s. congress. we were a country that was founded on different races, different nationalities, different religions. we, the republican party, led a civil war to free slaves ultimately and preserve a union. this is not the party that should accept that. i think the leaders will step up. tomorrow i guess they're having a conversation with steve king. you know, this obviously reflects badly on anybody. but anybody can call themselves a republican but it doesn't make that the values of the party. >> frankly, sir, before i let you go, the government you have has broken with your party and said, okay, we should try and reopen the government. do you see any path forward right now in the congress to reopen this government? >> yeah. the path will start when we all start acting like adults and we talk to each other and we quit using shutdowns as leverage, this is on both sides, by the way.

yeah, i do see a path forward. it will probably come out of the senate. i've been here before and it's going to have to be -- listen, everybody has to accept something they don't want to get something they do want. i've learned that if you have a bill that not everybody is happy with, it's usually pretty good. >> congressman adam king sinker, it's great to have you. >> you bet. see you. when we come back, what's in a name? a tiny european country shows what's at risk if you oppose russia. back after this.

now for something completely different. lost in the pile of big news was a headline out of europe this week. lawmakers in macedonia officially agreed to change its name, to drum roll, please, north macedonia. it's subtle, right? the name change is macedonia's way of settling a decades long dispute with greece that should pave the way for them to join nato and the european union. turns out none of this is sitting well with russia whose state media accused the u.s. of interference and anti-russian rhetoric. in a september new york times report detailed a full-fledged disinformation campaign attributed to moscow. facebook posts urged voters to burn their ballots and hundreds of new websites popped up

calling for a boycott. one widely shared news article even warned that google might eliminate macedonia from its list of recognized languages depending on the vote. there was such concern over the election that no less the defense secretary james mattis visited as a show of support from washington. while he was there, he warned of, quote, malicious cyber activity that threatens our democracies all of this for a nation about the size of maryland. another hour of kasie d.c. is - in a crossfit gym, we're really engaged with

who we are as people and making everybody feel welcome. ordering custom ink t-shirts has been a really smart decision for our business. - [narrator] custom ink has hundreds of products and free shipping. upload your logo or start your design today at customink.com.

this morning we're following two major headlines. the first a bomb shell report by the "new york times" claiming after james comey was fired fbi officials began looking into whether president trump was working on behalf of russia. another stunning report by "the washington post" taking a look at the efforts president trump has made to conceal his conversations with russian president vladimir putin. all of this as the government shutdown reaches day 24, the longest in u.s. history. sadly there's no end in sight. goo