cnn's abby phillip for us at the white house this morning. not happy at all, abby. >> reporter: more than a little pushback from the president this morning against his own chief of staff's comments, both publicly and privately. white house chief of staff john kelly was on the hill yesterday meeting with congressional hispanic caucus members and made some comments to them about the wall, trying to show how the president has moved on the issue of the wall, talking about how the president now believes that the wall can't be from sea to shining sea, there can't be walls in places where there are rivers and mountains and what not. and then he went on fox news and he reiterated some of the same comments, take a listen to some of what john kelly had to say and what prompted the president to say that he was or according to theource familiar that he was fuming about these comments. take a sten. >> he's a very definitely changed his attitudes toward the daca issue. and even the wall. he has evolved in the way he's looked at things. campaign to governing

to answer questions about the white house, time in the white house or time during the transition. that was not satisfying to the committee and probably accused the white house of putting a gag order on him. i'm not sure what the game was here but i think at the end of the day, he spent a lot of time in there and everyone left unsatisfied. >> we're left with the question not only of this interesting dynamic between mr. bannon and the white house with the white house reportedly telling him not to testify, there is a subdynamic there that interesting, that advice came from the white house counsel don mccann, steve bannon's lawyer is serving as don mccann's lawyer in the investigation. that feels like an odd conflict and the possibility that there is a chance mr. bannon's testimony to the house intelligence committee might interfere with his testimony or with the integrity of his testimony to the mueller investigation now that we know for sure he'll be speaking to them, too. this just got very complicated and you broke a very big part of it. michael schmidt, washington correspondent f

a tweet -- record a message when you call the white house, the white house residence, the president of the united states, the white house is the white house of the u.s., not of the democrat or republican party or democratic party. record something that attacks democrats is so out of the question. it's even hard to express. maybe i'm just old fashioned and maybe this is the world we live in and everyone's totally partisan and career workers at the white house are ordered to record partisan messages. it's wrong. i do think the disrespect of the trump white house has revealed to me what it's been for an year is incredibly partisan, all about president trump, about what he wants no sense of institution and taxpayer and citizenry. they talk a lot about the american citizens but don't actually act that they are the place american citizens are supposed to look to for nonpartisan guidance and not personal guidance occasionally and for standing above the squabbling of the shutdown. i would say on the shutdown, sadly, this vote i'm not sure will happen in half an hour. might get postponed. i d

white houses. it's difficult to compare the trump white house to the bush or clinton white house. hen you talk about the president being surrounded by people who have contempt for him or don't feel loyalty to him, one of the problems is the president isn't loyal to his staffers either. there's not a feeling of mutual loyalty in the white house. when you think about the obama white house or the george w. bush white house, there are people to this day who worked grueling hours because they felt a real sense of personal loyalty and a sense of mission and who still now talk about their deep love and respect for barack obama or george w. bush. i don't think you would find a single person in the trump white house, not even the president's children and it is telling he had to bring his children and his son-in-law into the white house with him, who would say they feel that way about donald trump. i think that is the fundamental distinguishing feature of the trump white house. >> got to take another break. new reporting from dana bash on what has motivated some of the fury the president unl

the white house has other ideas. into this vacuum comes this book with all of these crazy stories about what goes on in the trump white house. we know they're mostly true. he might have invented some stuff. generally speaking this is a chaotic crazy infighting white house which we've always known and now they have no real clear direction. >> the policy aspect aside, we're in a midterm where the republicans are running for re-election in congress. others are running to join congress. democrats will take this and say look, we need more democrats to have a check on power in this white house and i've talked to a few campaigns in which bannon was operating already. and some of them say this is good for, you know, either the incumbents or those being challenged by the bannon wing, by mitch mcconnell certainly is having a field day with this. if you're trying to present a case for governance with this as the backdrop, this certainly hangs over republicans running for congress. >> remember, the argument was president trump do

it's shifted to the white house. mp meet with the democratic leader chuck schumer there inside the white house. we just got a statement from the spokesman for senator mitch mcconnell, the majority leader who says that mitch mcconnell is following closely what's going on at the white house. we are coordinate with the white house on these efforts, according to that spokesman. we're continuing to follow what's happening at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. >>> after trump's election victory, the word voters use most to describe his win was hopeful. according to our nbc news poll. now a year later, new relates showing that hope has turned to disgust. >>> plus, a group of former democrats who voted for trump tell us what they think of his first year on the job and the one thing they wish he would cut out of his day. >> you still support donald trump? >> i don't not support him. we'll say that. but i also wouldn't wear his jersey. this is food made to sit down for. slow down for. put the phone away, and use a knife and fork for. an

the top democrat on the house intelligence committee accuses the white house of putting a gag order on steve bannon. congressman adam schiff is the one making that accusation. we're going to talk to him in just a moment about what happened behind closed doors. but first, the mandate of this special series is to start with facts first. here is the fact of the day. someone is lying about what president trump said during that immigration meeting. democratic senator dick durbin doubled down today telling jake tapper that yes, the president called certain nations shithole countries. republican senator lindsey graham has all but confirmed it is true. here's a key fact. their stories have never changed. that matters when you're assessing reliability and credibility. you cannot say the same for senators perdue and cotton. both started by saying they could not recall if the man who should have been the focus of their attention, the president of the united states, said a fairly unforgettable word. then they both changed their story. cotton saying he didn't hear the vulgar word. perdue saying it

the same language. we share a set of ideal. attempts in white house are contrary to what distinguishes a person which is the content of their character, not the color of their skin. >> i want to be specific here. is it your belief that the white house's agenda, people like steven miller who advises the president on this, chief of staff kelly, the president himself, have a vision for immigration that would attempt intentionally to reduce the number of brown and black people of color that come into this country because of their views of the inferiority of those people? >> again, i don't have any factual evidence that's what they're attempting to do. when you see them saying things like the lottery system which the intention of it, we don't disagree with the policy but what the intention was to make sure we're not having bias toward certain groups reflecting days of old where we did have quotas from certain countries. it seems like the policies they're doing could have a discripper to impact and the language coming out of the lips of the president himsel

but before i do, i want to go to kristen at the white house. nbc news confirmed one aspect of the report, so what is the talk there at the white house and from the president's legal team? >> reporter: well, look, they are pushing back firmly against the broader narrative of collusion, of course, president trump has a tweet. now that collusion with russia is proving to be a total hoax and the only collusion is with hillary clinton and the fbi/russia, the fake news media mainstream and this phony new book are hitting out at every new front imaginable. they should try whipping an election, sad. that has been his talking point for quite some time. and, of course, that book he's referencing is the "fire and fury" book that you'll get to later in the broadcast. but just to underscore what nbc news is confirming from the investigative unit, according to one u.s. official familiar with the matter, the top counsel here, don mcgann, and other white house officials reached out to attorney general jeff sessions and tried to encourage him not to recuse himse

west wing of the white house. our senior is in the briefing room and scheduled to talk in about a half hour and the approximate president's attorneys are fighting back against the book and the author of the book and steve bannon. tell our viewers what they have done. >> they certainly are on the fourth diof the new year. we are seeing the president for the first time trying to get back to business and his immigration agenda. he is meeting with a handful of senators in the roosevelt room and he was asked about steve bannon and the explosive bomb shell comments he made in this new book coming out. let's take a look at what the president said. >> any word about steve bannon. >> he called me a great man last night. he changed his tune pretty quick. >> thank you. i don't talk to him. i don't talk to him. that's just a misnomer. thank you. >> the president saying he doesn't talk to his former chief strategist, but just yesterday here in the white house, the press secretary sarah sanders said the president does speak to s

the white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders would not confirm yesterday that the white house indeed had had that conversation with bannon and/or his attorney. but did point to the white house's long standing position on such matters. listen here. >> there is a statement and i will read as it all congressional inquiries touching upon the white house, congress must consult with the white house prior to obtaining confidential material. this is part of a judicially recognized process that goes back decades. we have been cooperating fully with these ongoing investigations and encourage the committees to work with us to find an appropriate accommodation in order to ensure congress obtains information necessary to its legitimate interests. >> in fact, in terms of a judicially recognized process, there were many times during the obama administration that either executive privilege was asserted or they wouldn't talk about certain things. fast and furious comes to mind. and this white house is still, you know, operating by those judicially recognized principles. that said though, we wi

to at thet speak author's comments rp or i can only speak to the white house. >> does the white house have a copy of the book? ms. sanders: i believe some individuals do. very little influence in the white house but the president elevated him to the same level as chief of staff and put him on the national six rarity outsole. how do you reconcile that? ms. sanders: i would not say he elevated him to the same level as chief of staff. the president was clear it did not have a lot of influence on him or decision-making process threat his time at the white house. >> many of us have seen michael wolff at the white house on multiple occasions. we know he was here. who gave him access to the white house, and what was he here for? can you explain any of that? so far in the over one dozen interactions with officials at the white house, close to 95% were done so at the request of mr. bannon. >> other white house officials were not working with him in helping ms. sanders: -- -- ms. sanders: any who did as far as we can tell -- >> monday at 5:00 p.m., can we , where its on that will be televised,

>> look, no one at the white house has seen the memo. sion or to speak about it before that would take place. right now we are letting the house process play out. if and when it's time for the white house to weigh in we'll do it through the proper protocol, following proper legal process. we are not to this point in the process yet. >> two questions. just following up on that. is the white house -- i know you said you have to wait and see. is the white house open to the idea of a release of the memo to the

instructions from the white house mr. ot talk about anything of the transition or recent conversations he has had with the president. >> sarah sanders also confirmed that steve bannon's lawyer was conveying with the white house. is that the same proces that is typically followed. >> i hope he was not doing that because that would be an effort to read into the white house a committee's sensitive investigation. the white house has a right to put parameters in place for any time that steve bannon was at the white house but they cannot, they should not know what we are asking mr. bannon with respect to the campaign. >> sanders citing executive privilege that goes back decades. >> no. to my knowledge that has never happened in history. and it is happening right now with mr. bannon and also not supported by any case law or any statute. we believe this is the white house in most aggressive way yet, trying -- i hope when he does come back that and we are hoping that is soon that is correct -- the white house will clear the way. th

the republican party controls the house and the senate and the white house, so it is a little hard to believe that they, amongst themselves cannot come up with a way to keep the lights on, but not for the first time in the past year. we are once again on the brink of the shutdown of the federal government. because, even though they mathematically don't need a single vote from a single democrat to do it, republicans appear to, at least at this point, they appear to not be able to agree amongst themselves on a plan to keep the government funded past friday. again. so we are on the brink of that again. in weirder news, today was the day the president announced he would hold some "i hate the media" awards ceremony. it had originally been scheduled for last week, then it was rescheduled today. in a white house press briefing they said maybe something will happen later. they did post something online, a pdf file, a document, this was the awards ceremony, i guess, whether or not you care about journalism the president likes versus journalism the president believes should be held up for publ

, very little contact with the white house. d i certainly have never spoke to him since he left. >> the president's chief of staff john kelly says steve bannon has had very little contact with the white house since he departed in august, but a new report from foreign policy says it was trump who personally ordered steve bannon to limit his testimony in yesterday's hearing before the house intel committee. that's according to two sources with firsthand knowledge of the situation. if true, that would mean it was trump behind bannon's silence on his conversations with the president during the transition while he worked in the white house and afterward. and even after he was fired and, of course, the breaking news we told you about earlier in the show, hope hicks' testimony before the house intel committee has been postponed as the white house negotiates the limits of executive privilege. she was supposed to testify tomorrow. joining our conversation now is tom lobianco. he covers the trump white house and the russia investigation f

. >>> well, the trump white house is reeling tonight from the impact of something that has never caused a full-scale crisis in a white house still in its first year. a book. a book that portrays the president as someone incapable of reading a book. incapable of reading anything of significance. the book represents the president as semi-literal, could not begin to come pretend the significance of a chemical weapons attack in syria and did not want to discuss it until he was shown large pictures of syrian children literally foaming at the mouth. the book has many new and important insights like that about how policy, important policy, is shaped in the trump white house. but the news created by the book is not about domestic policy an how the most right wing president in history could sit in the white house and ask republicans and republican staff determined to repeal obamacare and determined to then cut medicare, why they couldn't just expand medicare for everyone. single payer. the single most liberal health care proposal in american history. the idea supported by ted kennedy before he d

and the white house line is down playing the steve bannon role in the white house and it comes straight from the top. [ inaudible ] joins us from the white house. i read a line. but the president issued a statement in response to the quotes from bannon. explain the whole quote, what he said. >> anderson, think we could retire the trm dumpster fire because the bomb cyclone hit washington a day early. we saw that at the white house with the reaction of steve bannon. i've never seen a statement from the president like this aimed at somebody who works so closely with him and so high up in his administration. but let's put this up there. we could read it to you. it is pretty remarkable. steve bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency. when he was fired he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. now that he is on his own, he's learning that winning isn't as easy as it i make it look. steve had very little influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue whom he helped write phony books. a couple of things, anderson, one is the white house press secretary sara sanders did say

contact with the white house during bannon's house intel appearance yesterday. >> it's the same process that is typically followed. sometimes they actually have a white house attorney present in the room. this time it was something that was relayed via phone. and, again, was following standard procedure for an instance like this and something that will likely happen again on any other number of occasions, not just within this administration, but future administrations. >> the white house instructed bannon not to answer questions related to his time in the white house or during the transition, an unusually broad interpretation of executive privilege. but nbc has confirmed that those restrictions will not stand in bannon's way when it comes to his conversations with special counsel bob mueller. quote, he'll answer any questions mueller wants to ask. that's according to one source close to bannon. and after mueller took the rare step of issuing a subpoena to compel bannon to testify before a grand jury, "the new york times" is now reporting that, quote, bannon has agreed to cooperate with

the most important official in that white house. so i think he thought he was untouchable. >> i remember that piece. it was very flattering to steve bannon. >> darth vader. >> here's the other thing, wolff is a masterful manipulator of important men with large egos and i think this book is a product of that. you can see he was able to get not just bannon but other trump officials on the record, had a front-row seat as the first year of the white house was unfolding and obviously writing a lot of this in his notebook. >> he did a biography of rupert murdoch, and murdoch's all over this book saying disparaging things about the president. what's your take on this? >> the most important, there is a lot of interesting back and forth between steve bannon and the white house. the most interesting part of this, the most consequential part of this is the fact that steve bannon, who was a member of the white house, says the actions of the trump campaign were traitorous, treasonous. he basically says that the campaign was in bed with a foreign

the white house on the attack.t do you know about wolff and the veracity of his reporting. >> michael wolff is a controversial journalist, a media columnist, reporter for many years covering rupert murdoch. he knew president trump for many years because trump was a creature of the media, reality show star, so wolff wrote flattering profiles relatively cozy stories about trump and steve bannon before inauguration day, perhaps a way to get access to the white house. if it was it certainly worked. we know that wolff had unprecedented access to the west wing for several months last year, hanging out there, having meetings with steve bannon and other figures. there are definitely some details in the book that are not true. already some factual mistakes have been found in the texts. but overall this book paints a very consistent picture of dysfunction, of a true white house in crisis. so maybe that's why the white house -- not the white house, but president trump personally is trying to quash the book. we received a lett

about his time in the white house or the transition? >> no. he was clear about that. he said up front that any questions that pertain to those two periods of time, transition or steve bannon's time in the white house, would be off-limits which again, led to as you might imagine, all sorts of discussion and argument within the committee today. >> today, the white house press secretary said the white house encouraged people to cooperate with the investigations. again, i don't understand how you square that with then the fact they reportedly tell bannon not to talk about his time even in the transition. >> yeah. you just don't. there is no squaring that. there is also no squaring the fact that the president has been adamant that these investigations should be wrapped up as soon as possible. he wants them over. we are now going to spend significant amounts of time, you know, litigating, discussing, arguing whether this claim of executive privilege makes any sense in a legal context. that will take time. yeah, it's a really puzzling thing. >>

outside of the white house. d it is the obvious thing to think, to realize that the people inside the white house who are just the same as you and i, say what the hell. >> well, the thing is, though, we have to ask you and wonder how on earth did you get people around him to even say that to you? did they say it to you -- >> i'm going to tell you something, they say this to everyone. everybody who they talk to, people in the washington press corps, people in political circles, everybody knows this. so the only different thing that has happened here is i said it. >> if they say it to everybody, how come it's only coming out in the way you're saying it now? and how did you get it? did you talk to them and ask them those questions? what was the reporting? >> well, there are two questions there. this has not come out, and some of this has come out by the way. you know, so and so called him a moron, et cetera. it has to a degree come out. but to the largest degree, everybody, and this is daily reporters, have to go ba

this is the first, the first book in the history of white house literature that's provoked that question and that is why it's already the most sought after book in the history of white house literature. it's sold out. it's completely sold out in america. sold out in bookstores and online. a million copies have been sold. already. that is the highest selling possibly highest selling nonfiction book in american history and to judge by that response this then is the most important book in the history of white house literature. that's what book buyers are in effect saying by the stampede to buy this book. that's what voters are saying by their stampede to buy this book. no such book has ever had such an instantaneous pull on american readers and raised a more important question about the american presidency -- is the president a danger to sensible governance and the country? is the president that casually tweets threats of nuclear war a danger to the world? joining us know, the author of "fire and fury: inside the trump white house," michael wolff. michael, thank you very much for being here

he was in lined to become the first jewish speaker of the house. only reluctantly took the job as whiteouse chief by the way. i think they got a lot done including as ugly as it might have been in the process including obamacare. i think that rahm had a pretty successful run. he was pretty good at -- he's kind of guy who did not shy away from telling barack obama what he thought. they had a real battle over healthcare. rahm wanted to go with something more modest, less ambitious. obama won that argument. emmanuel went and ahead and got it done. host: what is the average length of service for the white house chief of staff? guest: it is so grueling, so unrewarding and thankless and 24-7 that the average tenure is really less than two years. host: where do white house chief of staffs go after serving that position? how does it work? guest: well, famously in rahm emanuel's case. he left to run for mayor of chicago. succeeded in winning that election. not that many white house chief have gone on to elective careers. obviously dick cheney did. they go into a variety of jobs and there's no si

the white house counsel said no and that stopped it. that's the rest of the headline. trump ordered mueller fired but backed off when white house counsel treated hrea threatened. the sourcing here is four people, four people told of the matter so here is how they start. according to four people told of the matter last june president trump ordered the firing of mueller. the president ultimately backed down, though, after the white house counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive. this west wing confrontation marks the first time mr. trump is known to have fired -- excuse me, the first time mr. trump has known to have tried to fire the special counsel, which makes me think were there other times he tried and failed to fire the special counsel? this confrontation marks the first time he was known to have tried to fire the special counsel. you're saying okay, the president is being investigated for obstruction of justice by robert mueller who he didn't succeed in firing. does robert mueller know about this incident when the president tried but didn't s

official, "staffers for the house intel committee and the white house on friday discussed the parameters of bannon's testimony. the white house emerged from that conversation believing it had an agreement to limit the questioning of bannon just to events during the campaign, and not during the transition period or his time in the white house." today the house intelligence committee heard from other key trump aides, former campaign manager corey lewandowski, deputy white house chief of staff rick dearborn. late this afternoon the top democrat on the house intel committee said this about lewandowski's interview. >> he came to testify, yesterday he said on fox that he would answer every question we had, today, however, he refused to answer questions, like steve bannon, that referred to anything after he left the campaign. this, in my view, is completely unacceptable. >> we have a member of the house intel committee standing by to talk to us tonight live. but first let's introduce our leadoff panel on a wednesday night. michael crowley, national security editor, seni

the senate. they don't control the house. they don't control the white house. er to get some sort of fix for the d.r.e.a.m.ers, don't you have to swallow some pill that you don't want? border funding or fewer family reunification immigration deals as opposed to skills based immigration deals? won't you have to give up a lot in order to get help for the d.r.e.a.m.ers? because your party doesn't control anything? >> that's exactly. i totally agree with that sentiment. that's what dick durbin did. he and lindsey worked on that deal. that was put on the floor in the united states senate. would it get over 70 votes. because 80% of americans agree that these people who are american citizens in every way but a piece of paper. these folks who fought for us in the military. who are our first responders, our teachers, they've been part of our community since materialest years. they deserve better than. this so i say there's a deal on the table. i don't like it. would it pass. there is a president who would force this crisis. i at least as one individual senator would not

maybe it may not show illegality but shows things that were going on in the white house that may not reflect well on the president. >> michael, you report that the president personally directed his counsel, his white house counsel don mcgahn to go to the justice department to talk attorney general jeff sessions out of recusing himself. i don't know enough about how these things work in terms of how recusals are decided and how it works between the white house counsel and the office of the attorney general. how unusual is that sort of entreaty from the white house counsel? >> i think that the trump presidency is testing some things that we never thought would be tested before about sort of what are the rules of the road that govern recusals and can the white house lobby and attorney general not to recuse himself? my guess is that in the balance of the justice department, there are guidelines that apply to these things, but these are things that don't come up often. we're looking at a question of trump asking comey on february 14th to end an investigation. is that legal? is that illegal

decline to answer the questions on his own accord but rather he was acting on instruction of the white house. >> bannon is trying to get back in the good graces of the white house. >> it certainly indicates that he will leave no stone unturned. >> this is "new day" with chris cuomo on and alisyn camerota. >> tpwrorpbg, everyone. welcome to our new day. three days and counting until a potential government shutdown. house republicans hoping that another short-term spending bill will keep the government running another month. but hardline conservatives are balking at this. a shutdown could be inevitable because they do not appear to have the votes at the moment. >> we have a pretty significant new development in the russia investigation. cnn learning that special counsel bob mule onner subpoenaed steve bannon to testify before a grand jury. the president's former chief strategist was refusing to answer certain questions during a long interview with house investigators. and they wound up issuing him a subpoena as well. two other trump associates are scheduled to appear today before that committe

the white house just revealed a major development in the immigration talks back here in washington. s go to our chief white house correspondent, jim acosta with the president in switzerland right now. what's the latest, jim? >> reporter: this is a very significant development for the white house, just unveiling immigration frame work for a compromise over have very pretentious issue. in the last few minutes, briefing reporters and house republican staffers on capitol hill laying out points what the president is going to be proposing. they are talking about a path to citizenship, the president talked about it yesterday, a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented people, including so-called undocumented dreamers. in exchange, the white housements $25 billion for that wall on the border along with other items on the administration's wish list. this comes as the president is in davos talking trade, america-first economic policy message, but many are worried about his leadership on the world stage. >> how's the conference going? >> reporter: mixing and mingling at the world econom

does the white house standby the report r? >> absolutely. dr. son has been a white house physician for the last 12 years. trusted by presidents bush, president obama and now president trump. he is the only doctor that has w weighed in on this matter that examine examined a president. they have spent the amount of time with the president as dr. jackson has not only the most qualified, but the only credible source when it comes to diagnosing any health concerns and we support what he said u 100% that he's in excellent health and i think he exhausted just about every question that you guys have and he's in pretty good health too to stand up here to take questions. >> not too long ago, they have to announce this time to stalin in his approach toward the media saying these inspired dictators pair of statement from john mccain. the president should stop attacking the press. at some point you're supposed to give out fake news awards. >> in response to senator flake specifically, i found it quite interesting he's coming out to attack considering he's one

i'm leland vittert live at the white house. have the principal deputy white house press secretary standing by in just a minute. gillian, in some ways as much as the focus is here on the white house, it's just as much with you on capitol hill. gillian: absolutely, leland. there are thousands of people, they're down by the lincoln memorial today and the reflecting pool, just one of the cities here in washington, holding women's rallies. we'll go down there live in a few moments. so stick with us. our own caroline shively is standing by and she'll bring us the latest. both the house and senate working hard this weekend to try and come up with a deal to end the government shutdown that began last night. president trump took to twitter earlier this morning to weigh in on the shutdown, pointing the finger at democratic lawmakers for failure to come to a deal. house democrats held a news conference just a few moments ago, peter doocy is live on capitol hill. >> gillian, i was surprised this morning standing outside of the door of the

hello, i am dana perino, this is "the daily briefing." white house lawyers are taking steps to stop the publication of that book containing highly disparaging comments according to bannon. with the white house now, what is it saying about the former true strategist? >> saying a number of things, but if i use the vernacular of the day, "stay in your lane" the message from the president. they are pushing back in according to the flurry of cease and desist letters, it is obvious that the president was none too pleased by what he read and heard about what steve bannon is said to have told michael wolff. the president was asked about mr. bannon. and he said, look, the forthcoming book is obviously an issue. it is called "fire and fury" for the folks at home that do not know. bannon in the book makes a number of assertions including one of the president once refused to hire somebody because he had a mustache. that the president's daughter, again, this is according to another exert was "dumb as a brick." bannon did not disavow those comments, but he told a

the white house counsel just two of the officials who could exit the white house. the president struggling to find staff amid this constant chaos. >> and deadly mud slides in california, areas devastated by wildfires now left to clean up after another natural disaster. we have reports from capitol hill, from california, the state department, seoul and jerusalem, a lot going on this wednesday morning. welcome to "early start." i'm christine romans. >> i'm dave briggs. boy was it an extraordinary 55-minute cameras open discussion negotiation on immigration, something i don't think we've ever seen before. we'll get to that shortly, but we start with breaking news overnight. a major court ruling impacting hundreds of thousands of dreamers. a federal judge in california blocking the trump administration's effort to end dak th da daca. >>> the judge ruled the department of homeland security must resume taking daca renewal applications while the lawsuit proceeds. the ruling does not require the administration to process papers for first time applicants. this is for renewal

we can see the white house, a few lights are on. the president could be watching television, i don't know whether he is or not. he will be briefing what's happening now and how he decides to weigh in directly in the morning will set the tone for how long the shutdown will go and how they'll find their way out of it, don. >> all right, jeff, standing by at the white house, thank you very much. stick around, we have more to go. i want to bring in back david. by the way, at palm tomorrow, a high of 73 and won't be sunny. he may feel a little bit better about this. david, i want to ask you about this, do you think this will last for a while? >> i don't think so. so 2013 went on for 16 days and there is no question our politics are much more toxic now. look at what mitch mcconnell came out of the gate with. the white house statement calling democrats destruction losers and schumer coming back calling this on the shoulders of the united states. this is playing out right now. >> as he said trump shutdown over and over, oh, i thought it is n

i can only speak for the white house. >> does the white house have that copy of the book now? i believe there may be some individuals that do. >> jim? >> sarah, the statement the president's statement suggests that steve bannon had very little influence in the white house. but the president elevated had imto the same level as chief of staff and put him on the national security counsel. how would you reconcile that? >> i wouldn't say he elevated them to the same level as chief of staff. and in the actions he took didn't have decision making pros stes throughout his time here at the white house. >> sarah, can you clarify, because many of us here have seen michael wolf at the white house on multiple occasions seen him firsthand. so we know he was here. who gave him access to the white house? what was he here for? can you explain any of that? since we don't have access to the logs. >> so far what i can tell of pt roughly just over a dozen interactions that he had with officials at the white house, i think close to 95% were all done so at the request of mr. bannon. >> so the compli

if inwhen it's time for the white house to weigh in, we'll do that through the proper protocol. sure we follow the legal process. we're not to that point yet. >> following up on that. is the white house, you said you have to wait and see, is the white house open to the idea of a release of this memo to the public? can you say in the state of the union address whether the president will mention at all

the relationship on the house side, which this shouldn't. i think lindsey graham is demonstrating that leadership in the sense the white house has been awol on this. they've been all over the map. when they've engaged, the president was not calling democrats and republicans down to the white house, you know, in droves to sort of work this out before the fact. so i think the senate now is going to do the one thing they know they need to do, and that is to provide the leadership, draft the bill, get the bipartisan support for it, get it passed, get it passed in the house, and then send it to the president and say sign it or don't, but we're done. >> joel ruben, i want to ask you about trust in washington, d.c., something i've returned to time and time again as i've talked to lawmakers over the last 38 hours since the shutdown began. are we seeing an evolution here as you see this group of 25 senators meeting together to talk about the path forward here. are we getting past the initial stages of the blame game which began before the shutdown started? >> well, david, it would be very nice if that's the case. i served in the senate as a staffer,

also, just the white house council office. you have white house council going to tell the attorney general not to recuse himself on the order of the president. someone else in the white house council withholding information to the president. about whether he could fire comey, according to the report, he initially told the president that he couldn't just fire an fbi director without cause, did further research that showed, yes, you can fire the fbi one of the first things you learn is the lawyers for the agency you work for don't work for you. they boring for the agency. so it is highly unusual for the white house counsel to be giving personal legal advice in the way he was to the president. he should be defending the office of the presidency. the other issue that is really important is that there are times in our history when members of an administration have not told the truth to the president. it is not a good thing. it shouldn't be done often. it happened in the nixon administration a few times so this is not unusual. it is

so this happened in the bush white house. at's so extraordinary about this story today is that you've got "the washington post" this morning reporting that rosenstein, rod rosenstein who obviously oversees the mueller investigation and christopher wray, trump's appointee as fbi director trekked up to capitol hill. that's their word. they begged the speaker not to put classified sensitive information in the hands of devin nunes. maybe, i don't know that they made this case but another former head of intelligence agencies suggested that it might have been because in april devin nunes got his hands on other intelligence and so mishanded it, that he was investigated by house ethics. so he has a history of mishandling fisa intel. so rosenstein and wray go up there and ask him not to give this sensitive fisa intelligence to the committee. he's rebuffed by the speaker for reasons that are unknown and inexplicable to me. then chris wray, the fbi director just wants to talk to the committee before they vote to release this information

now we take you to the start of today's white house briefing to take you to the start of today's white house briefing, take a look at the week ahead in congress. this is from today's "washington journal." "washington journal" continues. host: joining us for a discussion on many things, particularly in light of the white house and congress this week, are two guests. we are joined by darlene supervalu from the -- superville by adam weaver. if you look at the papers this morning, this is from "the wall street journal," that the president is expected to soften the tone on the speech as far as tomorrow's presentation. darlene, what do we get a sense as far as tone eating into the speech tomorrow? guest 1: the white house has said he is going to speak in more optimistic tones tomorrow. contrast that with the inauguration speech he gave a year ago when he talked about american carnage and painted this very dark picture of the united states of america. he is looking to do a little bit of the opposite and be softer, more optimistic, more hopeful in talking about immigration and some of the othe

what more did the white house have to say? >> you heard sarah sanders describe this book as a book full of lies. i asked sarah sanders about that claim considering the fact the white house gave michael wolf what appears to be unprecedented access to multiple officials, including steve bannon in the white house. here's what she had to say about that. >> you were calling it a book full of lies. didn't this give him all the access he wanted? >> absolutely not. in fact there were probably more than 30 requests to access from michael wolff that are repeatedly denied including within that, at least two dozen requests of him asking to have an interview with the president, which he never did. he never discussed this book the president. to me that would be the most important thing, to have some time with him. he never did. he was repeatedly denied that. i think because we saw him for what and he was there was no reason to waste the president of the united states' time. >>> we should point out, the white house continued to blame bannon m

the president says one thing, but the white house means another thing. or the president undercuts something that the white house supports, undercuts white house policy. ashley, try to make sense of what's going on at the white house. are they waiting for him to tweet? is anybody filling him in on what this stuff is? i mean, are they using -- does this only underscore what michael wolf's book laid out, that the president doesn't understand policy, doesn't care to know policy and isn't fit for the job? isn't this part of the problem that that book underscored? >> that's right. and i think they're less waiting for him to tweet as much as they're kind of desperately hoping he won't tweet against all odds. what you saw is the president in many ways especially on issues he doesn't know quite as well is an empty vessel on policy. and on the one hand that can be a benefit because it can make him more likely, as he said in the room the other day, to sign whatever good deal arrives on his desk. on the other hand, not understanding the nuances or even the broad spec

former white house strategist steve bannon is at the center of a growing showdown whether the white houseffectively gag witnesses in the russia investigation. during his 11-hour appearance before the house intelligence committee yesterday, he said the white house instructed him not to answer questions about his time in the white house or in the transition. in an effort to compel his testimony, the committee subpoenaed bannon on the spot yesterday. however, nbc news reports now that after the subpoena was issued bannon attorney william burke conferred with the white house officials who continued to insys that bannon should still not answer the committee's questions. despite following those orders for the most part, axios is today reporting bannon made one conspicuous slip-up. "bannon admitted he had had conversations with reince priebus, sean spicer and legal spokesman mark corallo about don junior's, that's donald trump jr.'s infamous meeting with the russians in trump tower in june 2016." they were all talking about that meeting at the white house. meanwhile, after the special counsel al

the votes in the house to stop a government shutdown. a member of the house intelligence committee will join us as well from the white house right after this. if you've been diagnosed with cancer, searching for answers may feel overwhelming. so start your search with our teams of specialists at cancer treatment centers of america. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com/experts with a $500,000 life insurance policy. how much do you think it cost him? $100 a month? $75? $50? actually,duncan got his $500,000 for under $28 a month. less than a dollar a day. his secret? selectquote. in just minutes, a selectquote agent will comparison shop nearly a dozen highly-rated life insurance companies, and give you a choice of your five best rates. duncans wife cassie got a $750,000 policy for under $22 a month. give your family the security it needs at a price you can afford. we'll fok...im. ok? you don't always use your smartphone to read the latest posting. aw, a girl lost her dog. oh! hey... wait a minute. you don't always use your smartphone to friend someone. hi. i think i found your dog... but when it matters most, y

that's exactly what the white house did with the "fire and fury" book. ey said don't look at this, don't look at this. and of course everyone had to look. what is the white house so concerned about bannon telling lawmakers? we're also seeing why mueller felt compelled to issue a subpoena to steve bannon. >> that's the other question i want to ask you about. what do you take as the significance of that news which is interesting insofar as we don't think he's used that particular tool in his tool kit with someone that close to the president as of yet. >> there are different theories according to legal experts i've spoken to. the first is basically mueller wants to catch him without his counsel present. it's a much more intense environment. it's much more nerve-racking. it's much easier to catch him in a lie, for example. the second theory and this is shared widely among people i spoke to is they want steve bannon essentially to be able to testify freely. they want him to essentially be divorced from the criticism that could possibly come from the white hous

the white house chief has to translate the president's agenda into reality. that was lacking in donald trump's first year. white houseun the like trump tower with people coming and going. that was the fundamental problem, or one of several, but a major problem for donald trump in his first year. host: you write that when government fails it can be triggered to shortcomings of the chief. the stakes could not be higher. you interviewed 17 living white house chiefs of staff. is there a common denominator among those men? guest: but me give you an example of the stakes. to answer your question, consider when james baker after four years was burned out as reagan's chief of staff and was desperate to get out of the job. treasury secretary said why we swap jobs. inwas the most disastrous history of american politics. it's no coincidence that after don reagan became white house chief, the iran-contra scandal bubbled up from the basement. stakeker would have put a in that immediately. i don't think it would've ever happened. some of the qualities that are important our