evidence. they can't indict the president. what do they do? they have to find a way to get that evidence to congress. maybe michael cohen testifying and talking about everything he knows doesn't hurt the investigation and maybe it's their way to get the evidence to the body that can hold him accountable. >> that's on february 7th. i know where i will be. that does it our hour. chuck is just across the studio from me. >> the magic of television. they think we are in separate studios, which i'm waving. >> if it's tuesday, which bill barr should we believe? good evening. i'm chuck todd in new york. richard nixon said the supreme a right to know if their president

is a crook. in this case you can say the people have a right to know if their president is a russian agent or pawn. that is what today's hearing happening right now is really about. if confirmed, barr would be the gatekeeper for bob mueller's work and bob mueller's report. this confirmation will come down to a simple question for the senate. which bill barr do you believe? the who spoke to the president about being a personal attorney one month after mueller's appointment and later wrote a memo criticizing the work or do you believe the bill barr who broke with the president's attacks on mueller's probe as an illegal and conflicted witch hunt that must be shut down. >> i will follow the special counsel regulation skrupulously and in good faith and on my watch, bob will be allowed to finish his work. >> do you believe mr. mueller would be involved in a witch hunt against anybody? >> i don't believe he would be

involved in a witch hunt. >> do you have any criticism of the russian probe? >> not at all. i believe the russians interfered or attempted to interfere with the election and i think we have to get to the bottom of it. >> do you believe the bill who vowed to publicly share as much of the report as possible or do you believe the bill barr who suggested he may not share any of the report? do you believe the bill who said the president is builty of obstructing justice or that mueller's obstruction case was fatally misconceived? this is not your normal ag confirmation hearing. there is no business as usual anywhere. we are in the middle of a government shut down anskand we not focussed on it. the shut down is in day 25. joining me now, senior fbi

official and m srsnbc official. katietuand katkatie turr. national political correspokocot and magazine editor and msnbc contributor. all right, mr. rosenburg. which bill barr have you or are you most comfortable with. the one who wanted to say what it took to get nominated or perhaps the today who said what it takes to get confirmed? >> i was heartened by what i heart today. it's what i expected to hear today, but i will tell you this. even though i don't share bill barr's view of the law and probably not his politics. >> which law. that's a large phrase. what do you mean by that? >> i will tell you which law. let me just finish my sentence. i thought him to be a principled man of integrity. the law i'm referring to is the

2018 memo i wrote. he has a cramped view of a particular obstruction of justice statute and believes the president cooperate be found to obstruct justice under a particular theory of law. i think that's wrong. i also don't think it matters all that much. he said in that memo and since, there are ways the president could obstruct justice. if he said the word perjury or destroyed documents. i think the bill bar we saw today is the bill barr i know, the man of integrity and i think he will be confirmed. >> one thing we are not sure of is whether we will see the mueller report. let me play two bytes. one is to lindsey graham and mazie hirono, both on the topic of how much we will see on the mueller report. take a listen. >> it is very important that the public and congress be informed of the special counsel's work.

>> when are the report comes, will you share it with us as much as possible? >> consistent with regulations and the law, yes. >> that sounded like you will see a lot of it. now listen to this back and forth between mr. bar and mazie hirono. >> under the current regulations think the special counsel report is confidential. a report that goes public will be a report by the attorney general. >> in spite of the fact that you want to be transparent, neither congress or the public will get the report. what we will be getting is your report. subject to applicable laws with disclosure. is that what you are telling us? >> i don't know at the end of the day what will be releasable. i don't know what bob mueller is writing. >> i will start with you. you worked in the justice

system. what did you hear there? i think i heart a contradiction, but not everybody will hear the same thing. >> the second answer was definitely more muddled. the first answer to lindsey graham is i will be as transparent as i can consistent with the rules and regulations applicable. that's what anybody would say and should say. the second answer maybe he was tired or at the end of a long day. that was muddled. i imagine what he will try to do is make as much of the report available publicly as he can, however until he reads the darn thing, he can't promise very much. is there a contradiction? yes. is it reconcilable? i think so. it remains to be seen. >> i don't think there is a contradiction. i think he said in both cases applicable to the statutes and

regulations, you will see as much as i can give you. he said i don't know what's in the report, meaning the report could exonerate trump or hit trump hard or have a lot of classified information relating to the russians that would have to be redacted and the simple fact of the matter that there is an investigation going on into an american citizen who happens to be president of the united states. if the report has no evidence to suggest that he is guilty of any offense or crime, it is not fair to him to release the raw narrative of the report. rather he releases something he would write off the report, some kind of summary and that the report given the fact that it had nothing on trump, on the report on trump would not be released. >> i'm trying to think larger picture here. i think you're right. he's trying to follow the law as

it is written, katie and steve, but we need to see the report. i'm sorry, the country needs it. the country is never going to repair itself if we don't see it. >>. >> he did say it is in the public interest for this investigation to come to its conclusion. whatever the conclusion may be. there are a lot of people out there that would argue it is in the great public interest not just for the investigation to come to the conclusion, but also for the investigation to be seen by the public. the results of the investigation to be thoroughly reviewed by the public. what william barr is asking, not just senators, but the public is to trust him and trust his judgment. not just on the mueller report and what he decides is lawful and appropriate for the public potentially to see, but also on the fcny. he said he wouldn't interfere. that would be up to my judgments

and my opinion. >> for he's the attorney general, he oversees them all. >> that's one of the things that has gone under the radar. everything about this. whether or not he is going to follow ethics guidelines and follow what the recommendation was by the ethics committee. he is going to decide whether he agrees with it. it's about do you trust william barr and the man who served 27 years ago and the man who wrote this memo about the fatal flaws. or the president of the united states. >> i'm taken aback that they were nervous enough that they thought it was important that he write a letter to lindsey graham and said the president can obstruct justice. that's not a small deal. >> it's not, but nothing is normal in washington right now. watching this hearing it did feel normal in that that

partisan divide we have seen that has driven these things, there were no signs that was cracking. the first couple of months, the 22 different cabinets. on the 22 up and down votes of nine no votes from republicans. six different republicans and a couple of them voted no twice. one would have been a no. this is a longer term story. that partisan wall of something like this. no sign in that questioning sign of that cracking at all. >> what are katie said, he is asking the senators to trust him. he will run the justice department according to the law. that is what a confirmation hearing is about. he said i am talking to you and here's what i'm saying. you evaluate my questions and you vote one way or the other.

i'm saying nothing he said in a fundamental sense was controversial. he said i will follow the law and all these questions, whatever they were trying to bait him into saying something controversial and he would back off, he's smart and knows exactly what he's doing. >> do you think he has done this before? he had been through this once. >> it was an amazing performance in that he was comfortable sitting there before the committee. we haven't seen a confirmable official in front of a senate for two years who looked like he was not being under the root canal. >> i would take that. >> chuck rosenburg, one of the reasons this is controversial is because of this memo. here's what i'm trying to understand. pull up number five here. this is from the trump's legal team memo to mueller. they made this claim that the president has authority over the conduct and disposition.

the president cannot obstruct himself. i'm struck by the fact that the president's legal team seemed to not see the friday idea that obstruction and collusion can be one in the same. they did not see this theory coming. does this mean the president has not been a good client to the lawyers? that's the part that has me scratching my head. bill barr went down this road and they all assumed it was one thing. it's almost like uh oh. it's not that at all. >> right. i don't think the president has been a very good client. we know that most good attorneys tell their clients not to talk about the case, for instance. the president can't help himself but talk about the case and denigrate mueller and his team and the fbi while he's at it. all that said, i think you are exactly right. the obstruction is the collusion and the collusion may well be

obstruction. it seems reasonably obvious. i should say this though. bill barr did not say in his memo or at the hearing that a president cannot obstruct justice. he said he cannot obstruct under a particular reading of a subsection of a particular statute. i don't agree with that, but that's a mainstream conservative view of the article two authorities to run and control the executive branch. i do believe that the premises of your question is exactly right. the obstruction is the collusion. that's where we should be looking. >> it was interesting to hear bill barr explain how a president can break the law. >> for a member of the president's family or business associate was under investigation and he tries to

interve intervene. he is the chief law enforcement officer and he has the power, but that would be a breech under the constitution to faithly execute the laws. if a president attempts to intervene in a matter that he has a stake in to protect himself that, should first be looked at as a breech of his constitutional duties. whether it violates a statute depending on what all the facts are. >> did he outline a case for impeachment? >> that's what it is. a case for impeachment and not for the criminal prosecution of the president by the justice department on the charge of obstruction of justice. if he violates the mandate that is a matter that has to be taken up by the house and the senate, not by the southern district of new york or the eastern district of virginia.

>> then it goes back to what he releases to the public and to congress. what information from that report he decides is pertinent. it goes back to do you trust him to lay that out. hearing him say that, intervene in a matter that he has a stake in, the president has been doing that over and over and over again for the past two years. he's on twitter all the time intimidating witnesses and talking about how manafort or roger stone or whoever should stay strong and implying that down the line. >> he just described what the president has been doing for the last year. >> with the report is seeing, they will be talking to us throughout the last years or so. there doesn't seem to be a consensus of the ken starr

report. every detail was laid out. he gave it to congress and they were still active. political pressure. they release it to the public. you saw everything they had. i haven't heard a consensus or even a star-style report that will be in the justice department's possession. >> i think steve is right. if you look at what leon did, he laid down a bare bones road map, nothing at all like the starr report. there is no consensus on what a report would look like and how much detail would go into it. >> bill barr's definition of how a president obstructs justice. has the president already met that definition that bill barr outlined? >> great question. they turn on intent and corrupt intent. it's particularly hard what's in this president's brain. i disagree with john.

impeachment is the solution while he's a sitting president. you can charge a former president with a crime. >> fair. >> absolutely. >> i agree. >> i'm going to pause the conversation. all of you have to stay around. the new attorney general will have to confront the question of whether the president has been acting as a russian pawn or even an agent. we will get into that part, next. agent we will get into that part, next ♪a body has a right to ♪and shakin' me up so ♪that all i really know ♪is here you come again, and here i go, here i go♪ here we come again. applebee's all you can eat is back. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

in them therr hills on your guarantevacation.find gold but we can guarantee the best price on this rental cabin. or any accomodation from hotels to yurts. booking.com, booking.yeah so we improved everything. we used 50% fewer ingredients added one handed pumps and beat the top safety standards the new johnson's® choose gentle

to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing it's best to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪ means to fight the hardest battle, which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal? it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪ ♪

it's the most wi am a techie dad.n. h. i believe the best technology should feel effortless. like magic. at comcast, it's my job to develop, apps and tools that simplify your experience. my name is mike, i'm in product development at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. the basic point is, if someone tried to stop a bonified lawful investigation to cover up wrong-doing, i would resign. >> that just happened moments ago. bill barr's confirmation hearing as a question from chris coons. let's bring our panel back.

chuck rosenburg, is that what you want to hear? >> that's what you want to hear. what bill barr largely testified to today is what the mueller team and what a usa around the country want to hear. you want an attorney general with a mean streak of independence. i once had a professor who said never hire anybody who actually desperately wants the job. hire somebody with the independence to tell you when you are wrong and the ability to walk away. that's what it sounds like bill barr has. the ability to walk away if need be. >> one thing is, how did he get into the room. why is he there and did the president pick him because he thought -- it's hard to disconnect the idea that that memo didn't trigger something in the president's mind that said that guy the make his life miserable. >> as truck said, the memo said

something that is not controversial in conservative legal circles. the complexity of the role of the president said the powers of the executive branch said here with him personally, he is the person elected by the people or the electoral college. he is sitting there and it is from his position as the sole official elected by the country that the powers of the executive branch flow. if you are trump, think about it this way. do you arrest yourself? you are guilty of something. do you put handcuffs on yourself? it would seem nonsensical. you would quit, not arrest yourself. therefore the idea that the president can be subjected to an obstruction of justice charge while he is in office by his under leanings who don't have independent authority from him is kind of -- maybe it's a flaw in the constitution, but it

doesn't quite make sense. what he said in the mem row may have been enough for trump to hear that and say he is my guy. he's not going to indict me while in office. that doesn't mean he won't do things that will be horrible if it comes up that he has to do them. >> donald trump wants somebody in n that who will protect him. >> where is my road calling. >> ag sessions is not there any longer and he thinks that is what was done for obama. my question is, that's the position you feel that you hold, why did he send it to the president and not robert mueller's team? >> he did share it with rosenstein. one could argue at least he is supervising him. >> i don't understand what the impetus was. >> he listed everybody. that was something he just told

lindsey graham about. >> to write that memo. was it because he was trying to get in the door to be the ag. that was not a job interview and that was not his intention in the hearing today. i don't know. the way he has been put in this position, there are still a lot of questions. why did the president want him there? what assurances might have been made in private? there is a lot of questions that remain unanswered. this is not a normal time. you can't trust the normal guidelines and normal rules because donald trump does not follow them himself. >> sort of explains why now that the friday bombshell from the times and the idea that collusion and obstruction may be in the same. we know why he said just to get that, how do we investigate the president here? am i supposed to wear a wire? this is the problem.

there is no rule book. >> what is fascinating is all the questions being raised, does trump see barr as his protector? he doesn't have the resume that would come with that and he doesn't have the detachment from the republican establishment that trump ran against and has blown up in a lot of ways. this is a creature of that republican establishment. you have those two that and that image that is in conflict. the barr of the last two years and the barr from the bush administration. >> put this in context. i have been trying to put that together. the rod rosenstein and the initial scoop that talked about him saying am i supposed to wear a wire and now we realize that was probably happening at the same time they were going what are we doing now? how do we investigate this? they are trying to figure out what the founders meant.

>> yeah and i don't think whatever the founders meant, they didn't envision this. here's what i think was going on. comey just got fired. the fbi is reeling. the senior leaders are trying to figure out which end is up. seems like the president did it to obstruct an investigation being lawfully conducted. i imagine that a lot of things were said and perhaps done in frustration at the time. i don't mean nephariously or recklessly, but there is no road map for this. there is no way to know how you investigate a president who could be a witting or unwitting agent of a foreign power. i'm not saying he is, but there is no road map that shows you how to do this. so from rod's comment about what do you want me to do, wear a wire? i imagine it was said

sarcastically or in frustration to the notion that the fbi opened up a counter intelligence without briefing their elders at the department of justice. people are trying to figure out in that very difficult week, what do we do? >> speaking of obstruction, bill barr had another definition of how he would identify as something of obstruction as it came to the issue of pardons. this was a back and forth between chris coons and if we have it -- we don't have it yet. let me read it to you. if the president gave a pardon to prevent testimony, would that be obstruction? barr said if it was a quid pro quo to altering testimony, that would definitely be an obstruction statute. that would be something politically that should calm the waters for some in the senate? >> i would think so. it's what john was saying at the top of the show.

i think one of the things you see with barr is something you have not seen with the past confirmations for trump cabinet officials and folks around trump. he knows the things to say that will calm the waters here. he knows how to present himself. he's giving the answers. i don't think this means he will get unanimous confirmation. you heard from the questioning on issues unrelated to this grounds for them to vote no. the question has been anything that would break that partisan divide, that's something that will keep it intact. >> if there was a democrat that would vote for him, it's the who did this questioning. chris coons. i will sneak a break in. he was asked if he would change the statute to indict a sitting president and he said no to that. much appreciated as always. stick around. we have 2020 vision coming up and the late night announcement. a lot going on. steve king, conditions deciding now is the time to get rid of

him. did they just discover this problem today? we have an answer. an answer. what if numbers tell only half the story? at t. rowe price, hundreds of our experts go beyond the numbers to examine investment opportunities firsthand. like a biotech firm that engineers a patient's own cells to fight cancer. this is strategic investing. because your investments deserve the full story. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. with uncontrolled modor atopic dermatitis,a, you never know how your skin will look. and it can feel like no matter what you do, you're always itching. but even though you see and feel eczema on your skin, an overly sensitive immune system deep within your skin could be the cause. so help heal your skin from within. with dupixent. dupixent is not a steroid,

and it continuously treats your eczema even when you can't see it. at 16 weeks, more than 1 in 3 patients saw clear or almost clear skin, and patients saw a significant reduction in itch. do not use if you are allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, a severe reaction. tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems, including eye pain or changes in vision. if you are taking asthma medicines, do not change or stop your asthma medicine without talking to your doctor. help heal your skin from within. ask your eczema specialist about dupixent.

better things than rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, low blood cell counts, higher liver tests and cholesterol levels. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. your doctor should perform blood tests before and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without talking to

your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr. i have good news. we didn't let chuck rosenburg go. why would we? the reason for the good news, the panel is also here. it's this new information that we got from bill barr. the question of whether you can indict a sitting president. is it a policy that should

change at the justice department. here's mr. barr's answer. >> for 40 years, the position of the executive branch has been you can indict a sitting president. >> it's the tradition based on a couple of olc opinions and now it is potentially an imminent and indeed immediate possibility. i'm asking you for your opinion now, if possible. if not now, perhaps at some point. you asking me if i would change that policy? >> i'm asking you what your view is right now. >> i actually had not read those opinions in a long time. i see no reason to change them. >> that was bill barr under questioning from richard blumenthal. chuck rosenburg, the thing we

were talking about earlier today, if you can't indict a sitting president, why does the president take an oath of office? >> that's a great question. i don't know specifically why the president takes an oath. i'm not sure i can answer that, but i can tell you this. i read both of those opinions. the older one from 1973 is not all that compelling. it seems to be hastily assemble and not very well reasoned. the more recent from 2000 is a better policy document. that's a key word. it's a policy document. there is no law on this. there is no decisions. the supreme court and the appellate court trs have not weighed in on the question. i'm not surprised by bill barr's answer. i'm a little bit disappointed. i would love had to to have this resolved. the only way to resolve it is to charge the president and have the courts decide. >> the test case would be

helping if for the country. >> go ahead, chuck. >> i'm sorry to cut you off. it wouldn't be healthy for the country. not that it's not an academic exerci exercise. >> if you are sitting there for senate confirmation hearings, don't you think those are the two you my go back and read? having chuck rosenburg read them, why is it someone like that in the position to be confirmed for the attorney general? it sounds sarcastic, but seriously, this man is sitting for a position. yeah, he held it 27 years ago, but it seems like he is relying on all the knowledge he accumulated decades ago. things have changed so much. you saw it with the harris and booker questioning with the war on drugs and a mass incarceration. he was leaning back on what things were like when they established the laws and created the laws in the 90s.

times have changes so dramatically since then and the presidency has changed so dramatically since then, especially whether we are today. for me it felt like -- i hear you, i hear what things used to be like, but let's talk about what's happening today. >> i don't think you want a guy saying my opinion is we should change that so i'm going to direct the olc to change it. being the office of legal counsel. that provides guidance to the attorney general. it's like an inhouse constitutional law firm. the idea is they ruled and issued guidance on many, many issues having to do with what are the constitutional authority and what are the limits on pat presidential power. he's not just going to come in and say i don't like this one, but he will say i don't see any reason at this moment to change it. >> maybe you should go back and

read it. >> the second thing is, i thought that when you are talking about him talking about the 90s and talking about the drug war, he was saying to them, you have to understand. you are coming at me. you have to understand the position we were in the when i was attorney general. there was a gigantic crime wave that peaked in 1992 and we needed to change the laws and the way we approached things in order to kill the crime wave that was tearing the country apart. that's what he said. they said how would you revisit it? can you revisit it? he did not say no. he was explaining to them the emergency conditions. >> he said he had not considered that the decisions they made in the 90s and how we affected what we are seeing today with the make up of who is in prison and right now the opioid epidemic that we are dealing with and that this addiction.

>> i'm not his defense counsel. >> but if you are going to sit for that nomination hearing, i would imagine you go back and reflect on the decisions you made and how times have changed. >> he was pretty prepared when cory booker came at him and said 47% of the felons in the system are in for nonviolent crimes. he said in a lot of cases when you want to roll up drug wings, you go at the crime you can most easily convict on which is possession or holding or transfer and not the violence that is created that is circulated around drug trafficking. he did have answers. he was prepared. >> but for the violent criminals that are being incarcerated. are you saying that 93 percent per are people who were just rounded up for drug offenses to get them in there? >> no, no. he was saying that they were a

lot of people in the federal system are convicted of lesser crimes that may not have violence attached to them, particularly in relation to drugs because that is the easiest way to convict. >> i understand. let me derail this. >> i would like to think the members do the same thing. they get back into the cloak room and kamala harris and ted cruz go at each other. having a great legal debate, sadly i don't think it's going to happen. >> speaking of roving folks, let me bring in i booked a number of the house democratic leadership. the house majority whip. it's been a busy day on the senate side. by the way, there is still a government shut down. i want to start with simply this. what are you guys talking about? are you guys going to get together with the president at any point here on day maybe 27? 28?

>> thank you so much for having me. i don't think we have stopped talking. the staff is in meetings and there has been a bipartisan group of senators. they have been sitting down with the president trying to find common ground this issue. we will get to a good place in the not so distant future. let's open to the government first. what is the official democratic stance. >> i think all of those are taking place. sure, we want to open the government right now. and if we can do that, i think the best thing to do is we do have families and their security at stake. you do have a lot of features brought in to jeopardy. because of this shut down, let's open the government up.

but we can do that with legislation that also moves the issues forward. we have done that with pieces of legislation last week. we can do it and we will put the bills up again this week. if senator mcconnell will allow a vote on any of those bills, the government would reopen right away and we'll have policy for the governmental agencies to work with. >> it would only open if the government agrees to sign those bills. >> that's true. >> have you had negotiations that said -- are they ready to give you a veto-proof vote in order to reopen the government? >> only if we get the senate to act. i think if we got a definitive

vote in the senate, we could get to a veto-proof vote in the house. you cannot do it with the senate still out. we cannot. >> if you can find 13 republicans to put pressure on mitch mcconnell that adds up to 60 or they need veto-proof here. maybe up to 67. do you think that's doable in the house? i'm surprised you think it's doable in the house. >> if they were to do that in the senate, i think it would get done in the house. that's what i think. i don't know that, but i do believe if you have got a piece of legislation that more than two thirds of the senate voted for, i think if the president were to veto that, i really believe he could get a veto-proof vote. >> when is it time to try to go down that road and give up with the white house? >> yesterday. >> you're done. okay. >> no, we aren't done. you are saying when i was done.

i think the senate should do that now. we had the legislation since last week. any one of them or all of them could be wrapped into one piece of legislation and voted on and get 69 or 70 votes or send it back to the house. we would passing it and if the president refused to sign it, i believe if the senate were to override a veto, the house would do the same. >> i want to bring up the steve king situation. on one hand the house is united on some things. democrat and republican alike. then there is little dust stop it is. the congressman thinks they are not being tough enough. democrats think republicans have gotten here too late. what is the message you are trying to send? are you trying to force him or encourage him to resign? >> fif it were up to me, it's

something i would have done a long time ago. mr. king has a long record going all the way back to his days in the state legislature of saying these things of things and meeting with these groups not just in this country, but overseas as well. we know that. i think this went on too long and is now time for the house to express themselves collectively. the reason the disapproval is because i wanted everybody here to express themselves on whether or not they approve or disapprove of what mr. king was saying. we have a solid vote, all but one, saying we disapprove. not only did we disapprove of what he said, we condemned white supremacy and white nationalism. >> steve king voted with you.

what do you make of that? >> i sat in front of him while he was talking and he looked at me and told me he thought he could agree with everything i put in the resolves and he would vote for it and i was pleased to see that, however then going and raising that, i tend to focus on deeds rather than words. we will see how he conducts himself going forward rather than what he said in the house today. >> you are not bring up an official censure? >> if a vote were to come to the floor, i would vote for it. i would not advocate putting that on the floor just yet. >> why is that? >> the problem i've god is he was not on the house floor when he made these comments. he was not acting on behalf of the house of representatives. he was talking to reporters with the "new york times." i want us to be careful about

whether or not we are stepping across the line and trying to censure or constrain speech. i don't want that to happen. we will see. if we were to say the same thing on the floor, i would be for censuring. >> democrat from south carolina, thanks as always. it's a busy day. adam schiff and jerry nadler will be joining us in a few minutes. don't miss the beat. guess what. we'll be right back. miss the be. guess what we'll be right back. i hear it in the background and she's watching too, saying

[indistinct conversation] [friend] i've never seen that before. ♪ ♪

i have... ♪ >> welcome back. i am obsessed with the recent discovery that steve king made a career of making racist statements. republicans have now stripped him that neuters him as a congressman. they are basically encouraging him to leave. king was quoted as saying the following. how did that language become offensive? why are republicans suddenly shocked at king now? the times quote was hartley the most outrageous. there is this comment in june about democrats. they don't care about crime and wanting illegal immigrants.

there is this comment about europe. i think they better watch themselves. you are changing culture. it's a sad situation. there was this comment after the mass shooting in orlando. we cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country. yes, those are not steve king. that was from president trump. why be angry at king? do the republicans feel they can be tougher on racism after the mid-term out of the suburbs. they can't criticize a president who is popular among their own voters. is it that they fear president trump would punish them? you know answers from all of those questions. yes, yes, and yes. we are all glad to see that people discovered steve king's enthusiastic support for white nationalism.

we are all wondering what took so long. we'll be right back. woman 2: ...this... man 1: ...this is my body of proof. man 2: proof of less joint pain... woman 3: ...and clearer skin. man 3: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 4: ...with humira. woman 5: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. (avo): 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. woman 6: ask your rheumatologist about humira.

woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action. woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com but how do i know if i'm i'm getting a good deal? i tell truecar my zip and which car i want and truecar shows the range of prices people in my area actually paid for the same car so i know if i'm getting a great price. this is how car buying was always meant to be. this is truecar. fresh-baked, and hand-crafted, with 100% clean ingredients. just a few good reasons to give into your cravings. now delivering.

panera. food as it should be. that was quite the explosion of "the lid" here. time now for "the lid." panelists back. >> you should be a narrator for the previews. >> obviously i looked at this steve king situation, and it just feels like finally they get to condemn some of the things trump does without saying trump, john. fair? >> i think partly. but partly also, if they had not hacked in on this quote which equated white supremacy with western civilization, then the entire world view of american conservatism goes up in flames. i'm serious.

like, defending western civilization is a key hallmark of american conservatism. white supremacy is not. so if you equate them, you are destroying the conservative project in the united states -- >> could you argue that donald trump has done so much to destroy the conservatism -- >> you can. >> i guess what i feel like happening is republicans have been accused of being racist by supporting this president, and so what they're doing is using low-hanging fruit to say, listen, we're not racist. we're going to condemn steve king, we're going to strip him of his committee positions, we're going to do all we can to push him out of office because they feel so vulnerable with the president, but there is a hypocrisy that's laid bare. you just did it a moment ago. donald trump says terrible things about other races all the time. he launched his campaign with it. >> why steve king offensive to this republican party versus how donald trump has talked about

western civilization? >> we were saying this is "the x factor" in all of this. they're now giving him the tim hugels treatment. they recruited a challenger, it looks like, in king's district in western iowa. he certainly looks vulnerable out there. what happens if king decides, i'm going to try to fight this, i'm going to try to hang in there. a year later we're coming up on the republican primary. does donald trump weigh in in the last minute in that primary with a tweet? >> what republican primary, steve? do you think it will be for the fourth district republican nomination or for the united states senate against joni ernst? >> this is the appeal that trump has to the base. if this kind of plays out for another year, if king kind of falls into the background and decides to run, what happens if trump endorses him? >> john, they've got mitch mcconnell. this is some campaign. it feels like liz cheney in the house has been the big driver of

this, but mitch mcconnell, you can't get him to comment on the government shutdown right now. >> i think liz cheney is the key here. >> did anybody talk to the president to make sure he doesn't pull the rug out from the rest of the party? >> i don't know, he says he's alone in the white house, nobody is talking to him, he has no friends and he's wandering the halls and ordering cheeseburgers for the clemson team. what's the point? what if they talked to him and he said he didn't do it? >> maybe they don't want to bring it to his attention. they bring it to his attention, and mr. president, don't touch this red button. >> i'm sorry, we're all sitting here. if he somehow defended king in the next, you know -- it really does put the rest of the party in an awkward situation. >> we're in unprecedented political times in which an x factor in the political party is

a ruler of the party. in other words, the sort of explosive you don't know what the hell is going on. they can't spray fire at you from the sidelines, he's in the white house spraying fire. >> the call is coming from inside the houts. thank you all, and we'll be right back.. thank you all, and we'll be right bacou. thank you all, and we'll be right bacs. thank you all, and we'll be right bace. thank you all, and we'll be right back. and we'll be right back

it's just a cough. yeah right. and the earth is flat. ahhh!! treat your cough seriously with robitussin cf max. nothing lasts longer and treats more symptoms for your cough, cold and flu. robitussin. because it's never just a cough. to learn about their medicare options before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why...medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. this part is up to you. a medicare supplement plan

helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. call unitedhealthcare insurance company or go online for your free decision guide about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! to learn more call or go online today for your free decision guide. oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance. ensure max protein... to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. (straining) i'll take that. (cheers) 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. ensure max protein. in two great flavors.

as you can see, quite the

full show. bill barr, mueller, shutdown, steve king. that's all we got for tonight. we don't have enough time. we'll be back tomorrow with more "mtp daily." we have a couple heavy hitters. we'll be really interested in this report. mr. melber, take it away. a lot of breaking news. we do consider this a special show, as we mentioned. two people investigating donald trump, the house intel committees, mueller and nadler. new hints of what michael cohen may testify publicly about to congress. more signs they have more secrets to share. what i'm going to ask these chairmen about, bob mueller releasing new voluminous documents that