host: jim in florida, republican. caller: good morning. everybody is talking about donald trump but i am wondering what has happened to new york city? mr. trump was a part of the building up of new york again. his resume is second to none. the man is superman in my opinion. i was a democrat. these people are supermen and for anybody in their right mind to disagree or do not understand what this man -- just keep watching? this compliments, we are winning again and being respected as he said. there is no doubt. i don't know where these people are coming from. host: a question for the two of you, how do members of congress, republicans view the president's involvedhose that are in his inner circle in the white house? anna: it is complicated. in some ways, particularly for they areftentimes trying to communicate with her as a way to get the president's ear. with jared, there is more frustration of somebody coming into washington thinking he was going to change the way washington works. he was stopped pretty quickly. host: you have one part whe

donald trump and our republican friends believe they know better than american women. that's wrong, and american women totally disagree. but while republicans across the country push these proposals, they look the other way when president trump proposes cutting programs that help newborns and young children. the president wants to cut medicaid by more than $1 trillion, that provides health care coverage for 37 million children. he wants to eliminate programs that support emergency medical health sfs for -- services for children that address autism and developmental disorders. i hope my republican colleagues win join us instead of slipping down this radical, ideological and deeply misguided path to strip away the rights of women. now on disaster aid. madam president, as i said yesterday, -- mr. president, as i said yesterday, the question of providing funding for our fellow americans hurt by natural disasters is not an either/or proposition, but republicans are treat -- have treated it like one. they argue we can either have funding for our neighbors in the midwest or w

>> on the tuesday vote all republicans were on board, we don't yet know whether all republicans would be on board, we know there's at least enough republicans to do another nuclear option change which is what the republicans are now looking at. we don't know whether it's going to be all republicans but mitch mcconnell has told his members they have at least the votes necessary so at least 51 votes to succeed in the nuclear option change so this would be basically a shortcut to change the rules. it does not rewrite the rules, it changes the sentence interpretation of the written rules which for all purposes is basically the same thing but it's a way of doing that with a majority vote rather than the two thirds vote, it takes to do a full rule change or the 60 votes it takes to overcome a filibuster on a standing rules order which failed today. republicans weren't able to get that 60 votes on standing rules change. after that procedural abode one of the things the majority leaders said to reporters was we will be dealing with that issue tomorrow and through the balance of the weekend wo

you heard republicans making the case today. grand jury testimony.t allowed by law to release it. so then we'll have that fight. we'll see where it goes in the legal system. this is a political part of this process that's happening in congress that will then lead, i believe, to a legal part of the process. that's much more up in the air. that part we expected. this vote giving democrat the majority in the house, we knew democrats would approve this measure. now the question is, do they go down the line with the subpoena and then how does the justice department respond? those two things, much more up in the air. >> hey, cillizza, obviously, on the political side of it, just a few weeks ago, march 20th, to be exact, the president wasn't really helping the republicans' case here when he said things like, "let them see it." or do you know who is going to want to see it? tens of millions of americans. complete reversal saying i think it's a disgrace. shouldn't be allowed. anything we give them, meaning the democrats, won't be enough. do you have any repor

republicans only lost five seats. later they only lost one seat in the house and gained the white house. what we remember about the chaos is because larry flint exposed to the world the infidelity of the republican speaker of the house and it threw the republican caucus into chaos. but the politics stays with republicans on the issue. i think republicans will be rewarded for principle. >> jim manley, the presidential candidates operate on a separate track from house chairman or senate chairmen. >> they sure do. i want to be perfectly clear, to be first of all clear, i agree with much of what the congressman just had to say. yes, the reality is the senate democratic caucus is going to take their own temperature and act on their own processes and not be driven by the presidential candidates. of that i'm very confident. >> jim manley, david jolly, thank you for your expertise tonight. really appreciate it. >> when we come back, history is moving toward the house of representatives and there's nothing the house can do to

bounds the republican concerns only emerged at the end of post-cloture debate time, which republicans now propose to limit. had we had only two hours, horrible, horrible nominees, way beyond the bounds of normal nomination and discourse, even from conservatives, like farr, like bounds would be sitting on the courts today. i agree with what my colleague, senator klobuchar, has said. two hours for a lifetime appointment is unacceptable. two hours for a lifetime appointment with huge influence on people's lives is unacceptable. it's ridiculous. it's a mockery of how this institution should work. it's not just the courts. there are many examples in the executive branch as well. annemarie berkele nominated to chair the bcsb, it was reported that the nominee blocked action at the commission to recall hundreds of thousands of potentially defective baby strollers even in the face of reports they caused, quote, potentially life-threatening injuries. she even kept democratic commissioners in the dark about the investigation. and, of course, there's chad raddler who led the charge to end preexis

>> republicans, so republicans, tracing this back to the 1960's, democrats were in office in the presidency. the democrats primary minority concern was how to satisfy and the demands of a mobilized african american civil rights movement. republicans began to identify in mexican-americans specifically a group that was disenchanted with their status within the democratic party, which seemed to be to some mexican-americans primarily concerned with black interests. so a number of prominent republicans from the southwest in the 1960's, barry goldwater, the arizona conservative, john tower, a republican senator from texas, and ronald reagan, made strong it feels to mexican-americans on the basis of his sense of racial victimization. they had been taking a backseat. they had legitimate concerns around discrimination and inclusion in the democratic party and they offered, republicans did, a chance to hold out the prospect of a better deal from republicans. more attention. to some degree putting , african-americans in their place. by the time of richard nixon, republicans were in office when nixon w

we see that, young republicans, millennial republicans. >> one question and seeing throughout the questions online and also on my list, the separation between acknowledging climate change in somebody should support the broad idea of innovation. but very few republicans are supporting carbon pricing. that is just too far for them. so i guess, one question to confirm, you think carbon pricing is an essential part of the equation, if yes what -- why do you think these numbers are not going to support that. you think they'll change your position? >> i think carbon pricing is a natural component of any bipartisan agreement. i can understand why route o a t of republicans are comfortable or least open to the idea of carbon pricing and why they don't want to adopt the position because that is a potential trade-off for democrats. again, if you want to build a fiscally responsible bill which theoretically is a priority for republicans. carbon pricing is a wonderful paper and a double benefit. the revenue in the accelerated reduction in carbon emissions. i don't expect there to be a rush of republica

you had house republicans losing their majority. so there was really -- not only the characters we had been covering for a long time, but also the immigration and these massive fights. we knew there was a book, but we definitely got luck di by what happened. -- lucky by what happened. >> over the past two years, we have also had the special counsel investigation happening. now that it is out, when you look back at what you were writing, does it jive with what you were reporting? what you read in this book? >> -- stayed a little bit away from the special counsel's investigation because we felt like it was a book of its own really. we didn't feel like we could get our arms around it in a way that would do it justice. we did allude to it. we did interview devin nunes the congressman from california who was the chairman of the house intelligence committee about it, and interestingly enough, he spoke about how -- he spoke about bob mule and the book -- bob mueller and the book, and he spoke about how bob mueller would find no collusion,

and republicans sat at a table and hashed it out. that is one of the only bipartisan pieces of legislation that passed in congress during the president's term. i do not know if the immigration plan -- i think it is a tricky issue. -- withde room justice criminal justice reform, there was more success. in the crosshairs of the mueller members of congress sat in the fight. i am not sure what is in the bill. host: we will go to jacksonville, north carolina. jackie, independent. caller: hi. here is what i think about at least health-care. -- they spend $10 trillion on nafta -- on nasa. people, we do not need nasa. we need health care. hospitals,ent pharmaceuticals, research should be done by the government. that way it is cost effective. people will go to the doctor once or twice a year. prevention will help you, you know. you go to the dentist twice a year. you do not get a mouthful of cavities. all your teeth do not fallout. if you find out you are diabetic, you can take cautions -- you can take precautions. the hospitals, the research

republicans, including the republican leader, kevin mccarthy, are now attacking adam schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee, likening him to senator joe mccarthy saying he lied to the american people. so they are really using these four pages as a way to say, we have been vindicated. the president was right. there was no collusion. you dims have lied to the american people. host: what's the reality of the politics of attacks like this on a member? for example on twitter, chairman schiff is using it as a fundraising tool. >> right. that is the reality of it. as you heard the congressman say, adam schiff isn't going anywhere. they are not going to let the republicans dictate who will be in charge of their committee. so they will use it as fundraising much the same way ilhan omar and other progressives are using the attacks on them to raise money. host: what do you both think of the way that nancy pelosi and steny hoyer handling the freshmen progressives who have been getting so much press coverage and good thoughts spoken on issues? how are you watching them as the leaders appro

clearly republicans and many republicans are concerned about the fact that there was mentally ill in the election and many have called for to take steps to make sure that that doesn't happen again and i think that from the president on down there would be concern on the part of the republican party but as a political issue that clearly is not front and center while efforts will be made by republicans as well as democrats to make sure that no foreign entities ever have an impact on u.s. elections going forward that won't be the front and central issue. for republicans because they're concerned about winning back the house of representatives in two thousand and twenty retaining control of the senate and retaining control of the white house in two thousand and twenty five they're going to be doing all the things that it takes to retain the white house and to retain the senate ok we will get to the politics of this because i do want to talk about how voters may be processing this but the national security issue who who are will be taking the lead on trying to do something about russian i

republicans have put forth serious proposals. we put forth a menu of options as a starting point for true bipartisan net neutrality legislation. i've introduced a bill that codifies the f.c.c.'s brightline rules that prohibit locking and throttling and paid prioritization for internet traffic and that would require that i.s.p.'s, internet service providers, be transparent in their network management practices and prices. two of my republican colleagues on the house energy and commerce committee have introduced legislation that should also gain democratic support. representative bob latta is our top republican on the subcommittee, has legislation drawn from a proposal introduced in 2010 by the previous democratic chairman of the full energy and commerce committee, henry waxman of california. democrats don't believe mr. waxman's plan is a good starting point. then, representative cathy mcmorris rodgers had legislation that was part of the washington's democratically controlled legislature and signed into law by a democratic governo

those are moderate republicans sought trump and republican congress in action for two years. didn't like the tax cut that was passed. certainly did like the attempt to repeal obamacare and the arguments that were made. generally didn't like the kind of carelessness about making the covered work, epa, corruption so forth, and moved away from the more extreme dismantling. isn't that a reaction to trump and the republican congress? >> isn't it true speedy the base i would say is probably -- the deep state need to be a limited period these with a 10%% of voters who moved between 16 and 18 i've got to think. >> republicans succeeded like on the affordable care act and doing the one thing the democrats never were able to do, which is make it popular. [laughing] you look at, i think it's the pew poll. you look at the lines between approval and disapproval of the affordable care act, , and they cross at almost the precise moment that the republicans started trying to repeal it. >> the question i guess for the panel is it might've been expected or some of of the dismantlers have left.

of principled republicans. elliot richardson was elected lieutenant governor of massachusetts in the 1960s and then attorney general of massachusetts before he joined the nixon administration, serving in two cabinet positions, including secretary of defense, before becoming attorney general during the investigations of president nixon. when on a saturday night president nixon ordered elliot richardson to fire special prosecutor archibald cox, elliot richardson refused and resigned in protest, and in that moment of standing on principle against the president of the united states, elliot richardson became the model of integrity for every attorney general who has followed him, some of whom have clearly not lived up to the richardson standard. one of those was ronald reagan's attorney general edwin meese, who was accused of using his public office to enrich his friends. bill weld resigned from the reagan justice department in protest of the republican attorney general's conduct. >> indications this morning that the

way back in the back. >> i'm a former republican, one of a moderate republican. what bothers me is you talk about government reform, but i think 12-14 of the head of the government agencies are acting now, not approved by congress. how can you have reform with people like that? it is kind of funny how the guy who kept merrick garland out of the supreme court is now having a russian factory built in his district at home. >> you know, one of the ironies of this period has been the vacancies and layering of federal government. donald trump, before he became president, complained that there were too many people in the federal government, but did nothing to de-layer or streamline or whatever. you have these vacancies that create what i call a neckless government. you have department heads acting in several places but you have these dense networks of nerve endings, or nerves that lead down to the bottom of government and you are seeing the effects, whether it is through the shutdown, its effects on the faa max 8s engagement in the review, or you see it in other agencie

republican. he's a gay democrat.e have really pushed the needle forward and what i'm trying to do with the space that i occupy right now is to push people beyond gay as an identity or gay that means a whole lot when it comes to people's political beliefs. as a gay men should be able to believe whatever i want to believe. pete buttigieg should be able to believe whatever he wants to believe. that's what makes america great and what i'm trying to do right now is to open the eyes of lots of gays and lesbians in america and say hey, maybe democrat policies don't work for you. maybe voting with your sexual orientation is not going to be the thing that is the most important for you when it comes to your bottom line and the changes you want to see in your day-to-day life. host: here is larry from chicago. independent line. for our guest. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to upgrade the conversation. this idea. think of >> a working-class president that thinks like ronald reagan and plays guitar like

house republicans losing their majority. that wein characters were covering, but also this through line of immigration and these massive fights. we knew there was a buck, but we got lucky. >> over the past two years, we have had this special counsel investigation. now that it is out, when you look back on what you're writing, does it jive with what you were reporting? jake: we stayed away from the special counsel investigation, because we felt it was a book of its own. like we get -- we could get our arms around it i could do it justice. interviewedo it and devin nunes, who was the chairman of the house intelligence committee about it. interestingly enough, he spoke about bob mueller in the book. he spoke about how bob mueller would find no collusion. that's what he was there to look for. the politics of it, we stayed away from. we wanted to focus on the way donald trump interacted with capitol hill. we wanted to see a book where if you wanted to understand how congress worked, both in donald trump's era and in others, this

it's a losing issue for republicans. there are basically three constituencies in the wake of obamacare. those who couldn't have gotten healthcare before. those who achieved better affordability. it sounds like the person who was just interviewed fits into that constituency. then there was a third contingent who lost coverage or a plan. in 2010, 2012, that constituency was strong but they have now adjusted to the dynamics of obamacare. and so that is why the constituencies that donald trump is speaking to is not enough to put republicans over the line. he's being cavalier trying to kill it in the courts with no opportunity to replace it or improve it in a legislative environment that's divided between the two parties. >> do you think this thing that the president has put out there, kind of enticing voters to hang on because he has a plan in the future, there's going to be a vote after the 2020 election. do you think that could keep his core supporters and those swing supporters standing behind the president here? >> look

there is no republican plan anywhere within the republican ecosystem that would satisfy republicans' views of how health care should be implemented and still protect americans not just against preexisting conditions but have insurance all together. they're trying to play a game with the american voters of kicking the can past the election and fool americans that they have never had a plan and never will have a plan that people will like. >> it's much easier to make false promises about a plan that does not exist. that's what will happen. as he has done before. >>> house republicans are ramping up their fight to gain access to the full version of robert mueller's report on his russia probe. the house jacket has revealed plans to vote tomorrow to authorize spoon as for the roughly 400-page report and its underlying material. the move comes after lawmakers rejected a deal for william barr to hand over a version of the document. they are weighing subpoenas from five former white house officials related to that investigation. that includes former white house counsel don mcgahn, former whi

a republican.o ahead. , i think donald trump ought to close the border. something has got to give with what is going on. all these people are getting dispersed around the country. he doesn't know where they are at and they show up for their trial, it is just a mess. i say close at and be done with two.for at least a year or any trades with mexico, let it come by land or sea. it will be easier to find the drugs because it is either in the airplane or on the boat. line fortha, democrats, good morning. caller: my comment goes to the people who want to see the border closed. i am wondering if anybody bothers to look at the fruit and vegetables in the grocery store. they all come from south the border and we just went through nebraska with heavy rain and flooding due to the snow, something like 80% of the state was underwater. nebraska should be your wheat and your corn, i think. them.int is, we need we need the products coming through the border crossing. yes, give them the money and let them spend it

republican, go ahead. host: thank you, john. i kind of have a theory about comey when he came out that time and theore election democrats spurned him for -- hillary clinton. i think he was probably doing a good thing when he did that that phone call he made where they talked -- i just feel they found out something was going on in new york that related to hillary and he realized there was something going on with the fbi and he wanted to even the score and came out and made statements about hillary clinton. that is a theory i have. i am just wondering what people thought of that. thank you. in ohio,nita is next democrat paris good morning. caller: good morning. i just turned on your station after watching bbc america and i am watching british police dragging out julian assange. you can correct me if i am wrong, -- frankly, i think assange under -- american extradition. i will believe him before anything the trump administration says. i want to see what the british get out of him because the ecuadorians told

republican leader of the house kevin mccarthy who strongly believes the reason why the republicans loste in 2018 was healthcare, an issue that the democrats repeatedly campaigned on and hammered home that the republicans were on the wrong side of that issue and he reached out to the president and spoke to the president about this issue and one of the crucial calls came from senate majority leader mitch mcconnell who has made clear in floor speeches and press events he wants to talk about the medicare for all and the 170 million people who use private insurance the threat of losing that insurance and it was framed in the sense this is something we can do if we retake the house. this is something we can do if we maintain our 53-seat majority in the senate but in the meantime focus on this issue that they believe could be a political liability. the president, at least based on that tweet, clearly subscribed to the theory mcconnell was pitching. democrats are happy to fight on healthcare. they won on healthcare in 2018, but that's how republicans work behind the scenes to get to the preside

we sell republican opinion on russia improve. between 2017 and 2018 whereas democratic opinion has deteriorated. it's a very interesting case and i think it is a reflection of rally and support behind the president. we have asked in this particular survey, there were very few questions where there wasn't a difference. so the one most notable was arms-control. we asked whether americans or russians were coming to an agreement to nuclear weapons, for the united states 90% of republicans favored coming to an agreement and 89% of democrats also favor coming to an agreement. that was really it in terms of cohesion from americans across both parties in this one. we asked a series of questions on russia and syria in 2018. and we found that on the very issue, russia's involvement and is syria there was a lot of cohesion between democrats and republicans in sort of foreign policy. if you take true out of the equation, which is hard to do sometimes, you do find their united. but as soon as there is a hint at trump's we see a gap in democra

a lot of young republicans, millennial republicans, gen x republicans believe we need to act on climate. >> one question that i'm seeing permeate throughout the questions here online that i also havehe on my list is, you know, this separation between acknowledging climate change is real, it's a problem, something should be done, supporting the broad idea of innovations, but very few republicans are supporting carbonri pricing, my conversations both on and off the record withs republicans an their staffers that that's just too far for them. so i guess one question for you really quickly is, to confirm, you do think carbon pricing is an essential part of the equation and if yes, why do you think these members are not going to support that? do you think they'll change their positions? >> i think carbon pricing is a naturalci component of any bipartisanst agreement, so i ca understand why a lot of republicans who i i know from conversations are comfortable or at least open to the idea of carbon pricing why they don't want to adopt that position now because that is a potential tradeoff with

the republicans challenged it, and we lost. so the democrats are fine with it in california and arizona -- >> you're debating this like there's some legitimacy to what the president is saying about the 2018 mid-term -- >> sure -- >> on most of the examples you see the people who are rigging the elections, inmostofthe examples we've had recently have been on the republican side. and i'm not saying that democrats are innocent in this, but there is no proof of what the president is saying. his own election advisory commission was disbanded because they could not find any major examples of voter fraud, any legitimate examples of voter fraud and rigging -- >> can i respond? the correction has to be made, don, that there was fraud found and it was found on the side of the republicans. we saw that case in north carolina go to court. we saw the republican party abandon their nominee. we saw what happened in the state of georgia -- and have resolved differently. >> it was ballot harvesting. >> listen, i'm not here to debate fantasy --

republican president with a republican attorney general with a career office in the justice department many prosecutors who have a track record of benefiting the democratic and contributing to the democratic campaign i mean i think the republicans have also made a point that they would be have certain parts leanings no that's unfortunate i don't believe correct mr moeller him so as or always classified him so as not just a republican but a conservative republican mr khomeini has always. called him so a conservative republican mr all staying as no political allegiance whatsoever of which we know so if these people have such stellar reputations why not asking them to look into issues that a significant part of them elec american electorate is concerned about i mean i know many people on the republican side. and they do believe that it was a political hit job to appoint these pro and they do have issues with hillary clinton and her destruction of records and the use of the steel dos here and how it was procured how it was used by the intelligence services why is that not enough to look in

the republicans controlled the senate, and the republicans controlled the house, why did we see a health care plan then. and what does that mean for whatever might happen in 2020? >> well, we did see republicans try, not nor a week, not for a month, for eight months to get a health care bill through. and the president likes to bring up the fact that john mccain sank it. but it failed many times, not only when mccain voted no, but many times before that, and many times after that, this is just been an issue for the last decade, since republicans. since democrats passed the affordable care act. they've not been able to wrap their minds around. they have a blank space where their minds should be on this issue. i can tell you from talking to members of congress on capitol hill. they don't want anything to do with this now, i can't really understand why you would project until 2020 what you might do in a potential second term, it doesn't make a ton of sense. frankly, republicans have taken the position, whatever party is in power controls health care, that's why everyone wants to stay away wi

>> well, i can dell you, joy, if republicans -- if donald trump were a democrat and republicans had controlf congress, they'd be impeaching him right now. there would be no, well, let's deliberate. let's consider the political ramifications. they would move full throttle, full steam ahead. and i know that because when we were at the oversight committee, when i worked as a republican at the oversight committee during the obama administration, all we did was hold hearings, issue subpoenas. on benghazi alone, we created a special select committee to focus specifically on that issue, that controversy and we wouldn't shut up about it day in and day out, for five years we talked about these things. what i always observed how republicans view democrats, we thaw democrats are big wimps. they're afraid to take action. they're afraid to stand up. they don't have the backbone to do anything to stop up. we would just think that we could run roughshod over them. again, there is a moment that has come. the voters have given democrats a clear mandate for oversight. republicans have set the precedent for a

than a republican. today, there's a general agreement across party lines about the demand for reform. this is the current trend line over time. the brookings report has a much, a more accurate presentation. these are excel chart i did so everything looks like it's an interval of a few years but, in fact, the 2001 surveys were back to back to back right at them before, immediately before and after the september 11 attacks. but you can see the general trend. over time, the number of people who subscribed to the expanders vision of a bigger government that delivers more but that needs very major reform declined as did the number of streamliners. while in the second chart, the number of dismantlers goes up and the number of rebuilders goes up. right now, they are at rough parity. the latest data that we have shows the rebuilders at about 31%, and the dismantlers at about 34%. i'm going to ask bill in a little bit what happened to the dismantlers. how could the dismantlers go from 43%, 42% right before elect

no other republican is doing that. i am for building the republican party into a bigger tent. that can appeal to more people. i think we are doing the opposite. i think the republican party is shrinking the base down to only a certain percentage of white males. nationalnot win elections are state elections. having more voices that are saying more things and showing that the republican party is , itrse and not monolithic is healthy for the party and country. i am am hoping others will consider as well. >> one final question because i know the governor has a schedule. do you want to wait for the microphone. the piece cross was important to me growing up in high school. i was wondering if you can give any insight into your thinking, depending on which way the supreme court decides if there is way to preserve peace cross. gov. hogan: for those of you who are not marylanders, thank you. we are sorry we lost you to new hampshire. i grew up not too far from their. i went around the piece cross every day going to school. cross was a memorial that was put up by the american to buy the

so again, republicans -- i was a republican and i saw how my colleagues reacted at the time.hen obama was president. and when eric holder defied, you know, the subpoena for documents. i mean, they went crazy over that. and went to court and it was pretty ugly. again, nobody's pure in this business. a lot of people are guilty of hypocrisy. >> this is beyond. you're using eric holder as one example. this is an example of many -- all in a row. and who knows what else is to come? >> right. >> with this administration. >> right. >> all right. we'll leave it there. thank you all. >>> why is the president fighting congress every chance he gets? what is he afraid of? we'll discuss next. was ahead of its time. still, we never stopped making it stronger. faster. smarter. because to be the best, is to never ever stop making it better. there's never been a better time to become part of the mercedes-benz family. visit the mercedes-benz spring event before april 30th for exceptional lease and financing offers on the 2019 c 300. new lower price. wow. that's a lot of asparagus. yeah, you sai

our state is only 26% republican . after 4 years of bipartisan success, and economic progress, last november, in our deep blue state in a big blue year, with a huge blue wave, we rode a purple surfboard to an overwhelming double-digit victory. while my party was racking up losses all across the country, in our state, where hillary clinton won in 2016 by 26 point, as jim mentioned, i got more votes than any previous gubernatorial candidate ever. i became the second republican governor reelected in the entire 243 year history of our state. the voters of our state rejected divisive politics, and voted instead for civility, bipartisanship, and common sense. they sent a loud and clear message to washington, that they heard across the country. as a young man, i worked for ronald reagan, who once said, that there is no limit to the amount of good that you can do if you don't care who gets the credit. it is that kind of common sense pragmatism that has guided our path. we found a way to disagree without being disagreeable. we

the republican war on health care. the trump justice department recently moved in federal court not only to strike down pre-existing condition coverage under the affordable care act, but to overturn this law completely. if the president succeeds in texas vs. u.s., the protections for pre-existing conditions will be gone. the medicaid expansion will be nullified. insurance premiums will sproket. and i could go on and on and on and on. striking down the affordable care act would be a tragedy felt by every single american. we would return to the days when our health insurance marketplace was like the wild west. when insurers were free to decline or limit coverage because someone had acne or received an organ transplant or even because they were a victim of domestic violence. that's how messed up our system was. that is the system that this president and many of my colleagues want to return to. but for the life of me i cannot understand what president trump and his allies in congress have against americans getting health c

but a conservative republican mr khomeini has always. called him so a conservative republican mr all staying has no political allegiance whatsoever of which we know so if these people have such stellar reputations why not asking them to look into issues that a significant part of them elec american electorate is concerned about i mean i know many people on the republican side. and they do believe that it was a political hit job to appoint these pro and they do have issues to be a pillar of clinton and her destruction of records and the use of the steel dos here and how it was procured how it was used by the intelligence services why is that not enough to look into by somebody who you all can trust well this was looked into by by the f.b.i. by the by they call me comber is a loyal republican he's not a is not a democrat. and a so this was looked and true and then let's bear in mind we come to the dubious deal those are it's over. it's a very intricate background. and that there were people who were in both the russian saw eye and their me

only 10% of republicans support impeachment. even if you have republicans say more than that number, 19% saying they believe that the president lied, only 10% believe that they think impeachment should go forward here. even in the republican party some of their numbers are split. >> kevin i want to go back to the point that sara was making about the numbers thinking the president lied. 58% of americans in that poll think the president has lied to the public about matters under investigation by the special counsel. so does this show us, kevin that people really aren't buying the administration's messaging in the wake of the report's release? >> yes. i mean look, you don't have to look at the polls. go to the dinner conversation of any political family around the country when folks are talking about the mueller investigation. to both points that both of you are making in terms of how this would move forward the question for democrats right now is if they pursue impeachment and i want takes more than a year, virtually every source

but this is a fight that republicans do not want to have. you hard the president saying there that republicans need to be prepared to run on this in 2020 but actually republican lawmakers were opening to run on that democrat idea of medicare for all in attacking it. not focusing on what their own party will produce for health care and that is unexpected when the president suddenly started pushing for it last week. now today the president said he did not have to be convinced not to have a vote on health care before the 2020 election but actually he kind of did based on our reporting. we heard from several sources that the president got a slew of phone calls from republicans in recent days telling him that this is not a fight they want to have. but senate majority leader mitch mcconnell saying wait until after the 2020 election for something like this to become a fight in the senate. we are not ready to have this fight right now. but with the president pushing this to 2020 book, now republicans are going to face questions about what their heal

and that in this case is republicans.hought it was important to try to have a bipartisan bill. anything you do something this big and this bold, ultimately, you would want it to be bipartisan. >> is that a political calculation or a first governance principle? >> i think it's a first principal. >> is it a defeatable first principle. like if valerie jarrett were hired as the senior adviser to the next president coming in, big domestic policy legislation, before, do you say, let's go get a meeting with tom cotton and see if he'll work with us on this climate bill? >> well, i think you do have to try. the question is, how long do you go at it? and ultimately, we did go it alone. we did make the political calculus that it was more important to get affordable health care for all of america than to get a bipartisan bill. but it was important for us to try and to try every way possible. because i think that's what's fair for the american people to expect of us. i think to do it again, we probably spent so much time trying to get

the time has come for republicans of this chamber and republicans in the house to have a frank conversation with the president about what can or cannot pass congress. the president cares about iowa and texas and missouri and all american citizens affected by natural disasters, he won't veto this bill and we know that. the measure we are presenting today isn't some solution hooked up out of the field. simple proposal we need disaster relief for all americans plain and simple. senators earlier this year, as they always do, i appreciate that. a great relationship our appropriations committee share in ranking member meister has. about the president onto that lunch and where or when, he founded the tape and said no way to puerto rico. he said that. the only problem, we are at the brink ofmi complex, trump all to often told these things. don't ask if they support this, measure that meets the needs of all americans, then what is there plan? passed the house and senate go to the president's desk. he goes to puerto rico and not the west, he's not going to veto a bill in the middle west. why should h