mtp daily starts right now. katy tur in for chuck. in it's monday, a historic moment at a hearing on the hill deepens. the president's credibility crisis. tonight, tapped out. fbi director james comey shoots down the president's wiretap claims. >> i have no information that supports those tweets. and we have looked carefully inside the fbi. >> and confirms a probe into a possible collusion between the trump campaign and russia. plus supreme pick. a battle 13 months in the making begins today. >> i'm dying for somebody over there tell me why he's not qualified to be sitting here. >> and how today's hearings on the hill took a page from this '80s classic. >> bueller. bueller. bueller. >> this is mtp daily, and it
starts right now. good evening, i'm katy tur in new york in for chuck todd. welcome to mtp daily. we begin tonight with a stunning rebuke of a sitting president by his intelligence chiefs. today, both the fbi director james comey and nsa director mike rogers, both holdovers from the obama administration, testified publicly in front of the house intelligence committee. and questioned the white house's credibility as it continues to defend president trump's unsubstantiated statements that president obama wiretapped trump during the campaign. first, here's what fbi director comey told the committee's ranking member, congressman adam schiff. >> director comey, was the present statement that obama had his wires tapped in trump tower a true statement? >> with respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, i have
no information that supports those tweets. and we have looked carefully inside the fbi. the department of justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the department of justice and all of it's components, the department has no information that supports those tweets. >> and here is nsa chief mike rogers' response to a follow-up question on the subject. >> president and spokesman sean spicer suggested that british intelligence through it's nsa or gchq wiretapped mr. trump on president obama's behalf. did you ever request that your counterparts should wiretap mr. trump on behalf of president obama? >> no, sir. nor would i. that would be expressly against the construct of the agreement that's been in place for decades. >> have you seen any evidence that anyone else in the obama administration made such a request? >> no, sir, and again, my view is the same as director comey. i have seen nothing on the nsa side that we engaged in any such
activity nor that anyone ever asked us to engage in such activity. >> and in ian bigger news, the fbi confirmed it's investigation into the sitting president's campaign operation. here's fbi director comey going public with the news. >> i have been authorized by the department of justice to confirm that the fbi as part of our counterintelligence mission is investigating the russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the trump campaign and the russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and russia's efforts. as with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed. >> the white house tried to put the best possible spin on today's hearing as it was happening. tweeting the nsa and fbi tell congress that russia did not
influence electoral process. press secretary sean spicer repeated that point during today's press briefing, but again the white house's credibility seemed to take a hit when director comey knocked down president trump's tweaks after a congressman read it to him on live tv. >> is the tweet, as i read it to you the nsa and fbi tell congress that russia did not influence the electoral process, is that accurate? >> well, it's hard for me to react. let me tell you what we understand -- what we've said is, we have offered no opinion, have no view, have no information on potential impact because it's never something that we looked at. >> we begin tonight with nbc' intelligence and national security reporter denver delaware leiny. let's take the 30,000 foot view of this in the beginning. the fbi is now saying that they are investigating a sitting president's campaign. where does it go next? >> well katy, first of all, that in itself is a bomb shell.
i mean, it's extraordinarily rare for the fbi to ever confirm publicly a criminal investigation. so you have the fbi director telling the american public that there is a criminal investigation into whether trump associates and trump campaign colluded with a foreign power. it's one thing for nbc news and other news organizations to report that based on enormous sources, but now the fbi confirmed it and it creates an expectation that we're going to find out one way or another whether it's true. now we have reported and others have reported that as part of this investigation already the fbi has reviewed intercepts and it looking at contacts and conversations between trump associates and russians. one can presume that they're going to be reviewing thousands of documents and interviewing hundreds of people as part of this counterintelligence investigation, and you know, generally the playbook in these probes is they try to flip a little fish. they try to prove a crime against a smaller figure, get the cooperation of that figure to testify against a bigger fish. so that's the kind of thing we can expect.
>> what do you make of the argument that there is no evidence there? they're investigating, so the evidence is still being looked into, correct? >> of course. and you know, a number of people senior lawmakers hey we've been briefed on this and we've heard of no evidence of collusion. i'm suspicious, this investigation would be closely held. the fbi agents involved in this are not necessarily going to brief these facts to congress. it's not their habit to brief a criminal investigation to congress. in fact, the investigation started in july and congress only heard about it very recently comey said today. so there may be a lot of evidence, there may be no evidence, but you should be suspicious of people saying they're not aware of any briefed, katy. >> and we have nbc's white house correspondent kristen welker in louisville ahead of president trump's rally there this evening. kristen, been a couple hours since this briefing has wrapped up. how is the white house absorbing what they learned today? >> reporter: katy, there's no
doubt the white house is in defense mode. they are trying to tampa down what we heard on capitol hill today making the point, sean spicer said this during the briefing, i've had conversations in the wake of that briefing. white house officials saying look, this investigation has been going on for quite some time and hasn't turned up any actual evidence. and so there's nothing to see there. take a listen to what press secretary sean spicer had to say earlier today. >> when the people who have been briefed by the fbi about collusion between individuals, the answer is continues to be no. and at some point, take no for an answer. >> reporter: katy, there's another part of this strategy, the white house is trying to distance itself from some of the campaign associates who are coming under sharp scrutiny this in this investigation, folks like roger stone, carter page, calling them hangers on to the campaign. essentially saying look, they never really had any significant influence over the campaign.
the challenge for the white house katy, this comes as the president is trying to push through a key part of his agenda. the plan to repeal and replace obamacare. house set to vote on thursday. that's part of why he's here in kentucky. he wants to push for that fwoil get passed. this by the way is a success story for obamacare. he's gotten an uphill bat until terms of making an argument. all of this overshadowing the broader agenda, katy. >> sean spicer saying that essentially the campaign manager for a time, paul manafort, kristen, only played a very limited role in the campaign. >> reporter: and that statement raised eyebrows, katy. i pressed the white house on that statement. i said how can sean spicer argue that he only played a limited role in the campaign when he was in fact the campaign manager? their pushback is look, we've cleaned that statement up a little bit. he was referencing the amount of time that paul manafort actually
served as the campaign manager, also worth noting, manafort has consistently said that he had no ties to russia throughout this process. nonetheless, this is an issue. >> paul manafort served longer in the campaign and steve bannon did. one last question for you, ken. talk to me about what you saw in the introduction with the ranking member, congressman adam schiff when he referenced some of that dossier, that dossier that was gathered by the british intelligence agent michael steele. >> some of the names that kristen just mentioned were names that adam schiff mentioned today as he made allegations. written by the former british intelligence operative. carter page, paul manafort, schiff laid out meetings and contacts among these people during the summer when the russian campaign to hack and leak and interfere in the election was picking up speed.
and you know, schiff is a very careful former prosecutor. he's also a member of the gang of eight. which means he gets the most classified intelligence briefings. it's hard for me to believe that schiff reads that stuff into the congressional record without some indication, at least in his own mind, that there's some truth to these allegations, katy. >> kim and kristen, thank you, guys. now i'm joined by democratic congressman eric squallwell of california. you might recognize him now from being in the hearing. he's also a member of the house intelligence committee. do you have full confidence in fbi director james comey? >> i do. >> why? >> well today he came before and broke, you know, traditional precedent which is you don't talk about what you're doing, why you're doing it at the fbi and only one other time prior did he really brief congress on what they were doing with respect to an investigation. and so he came to congress, he said that the president of the united states campaign is under
investigation with respect to an attack that a foreign adversary carried out. that was pretty powerful and surprising, frankly, for us to hear. and now i think the american people are just wondering what are we going to make sure never again we're in a mess like this where another country messes with our election and hearings to try to figure out whether a kpachb worked with a foreign adversary. we don't want to be in that position again. >> a lot of colleagues out here who did vote for hillary clinton criticized fbi director comey for his handling of the hillary clinton e-mail investigation. criticized him for coming out and unveiling that and confirming it during the campaign. and confirming into the trump campaign and it's potential ties to russia. if -- on the one hand, there's criticism for him doing something against hillary clinton or in regards to hillary clinton and not to donald trump,
do you retain full confidence in him for everything? for all of the things that he's doing? >> i do, and katy, you know, that's the past. it actually seems like it's the distant past. right now, what we want to be assured that that there's a full investigation under way. that evidence will be followed and that all leads will be pursued. and for most americans, i think it's quite disturbing that another country would attack us. and they're wondering, do these deep political personal and financial ties that donald trump and his team have with russia develope they extend to working with russia as they were attacking us? basically were these coincidences or was it a convergence? >> what did you learn today? >> well we learned that an investigation is taking place. we also learned that the president's claim that former president obama wiretapped him was a deceitful smoke bomb rolled into an investigation only intended to obstruct. now we know that an investigation indeed is under way. i think that has completely
devastated with respect to russia. which is unfortunate, katy, because we need our president to be credible on national security issues. >> democratic colleague in the senate, richard said today during the that he believes that donald trump, the president of the united states could be subpoenaed. could your committee subpoena the president and would you consider it? >> we should hear from any witness that had ties to russia, especially any witness that was talking to russia while the interference campaign was being run. if that includes the president, people on his security team, people in his family and people i think the people want to get to the bottom of this. that would be yes. >> you would subpoena the president of the united states. >> also his tax returns, katy. because after learning about all of these extensive ties, i don't think an investigation would be complete unless we are able to review the president's tax returns. >> well, given that, i want to play a little bit about what you
were asking let's play that. >> would it be important for you if you were concerned that a u.s. person had financial intanglements with a foreign adversary to see that person's tax returns? >> that's the hypothetical i want to avoid answering. the answer is it would depend really. depend on a whole lot of circumstances. >>ed that be one of the pieces of evidence that you would consider looking at? >> maybe. maybe. you might be able to get the picture you need from other financial records that are more readily available. >> congressman, what do you make of director comey's answer? >> i hope they're looking at all of donald trump's financial holdings because i also laid out a number of ties that he has from tenants in trump tower who are associated with russians to a home sale in florida where he
bought the home in 2004 for $40 million and sold it for about $98 million in 2008 at the peak of the financial collapse. and russian businessmen. there were a number of ties that he has to a foreign adversary. and katy it was important to make the point today that these are not business ties with the french or the germans or the australians. these are business ties with the foreign adversary, and never in the history of our country have we seen a presidential candidate and his team have such extensive ties to a foreign adversary which also is quite concerning. >> back to subpoenaing the president of the united states, have you spoken to chairman nunes about this or will you speak to chairman nunes about this? >> of course, katy, you know there are different privileges they may try to assert to prevent that. i think we need to hear from all witnesses and the dots that continue to connect in this investigation tell us that we want to hear from the president. we want to hear from his family. we to want hear from people on
his team. and i think an investigation is only complete if we hear from those individuals. so i hope my republican colleagues would welcome that. >> would you make that request? >> we're going to request to speak to all relative witnesses. i want to go through what we learned today and also i think go forward with what documents and witnesses we to want receive. >> thank you congressman. >> thank you, katy. will the political gut punch knock the wind out of the white house? stay tuned. what if technology gave us the power to turn this enemy into an ally? microsoft and its partners are using smart traps to capture mosquitoes and sequence their dna to fight disease. there are over 100 million pieces of dna in every sample. with the microsoft cloud, we can analyze the data faster than ever before. if we can detect new viruses before they spread, we may someday prevent outbreaks before they begin.
pcountries thatk mewe traveled,t what is your nationality and i would always answer hispanic. so when i got my ancestry dna results it was a shocker. i'm everything. i'm from all nations. i would look at forms now and wonder what do i mark? because i'm everything. and i marked other. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com.
welcome back. today kicked off the most consequential week of donald trump's presidency, and it began with his approval rating at an all-time low. the gallup poll has president trump with a 37% approval rating, roughly two months into his term. and 58% of americans disapprove of the job that he is doing. just so week earlier, president trump had a 45% approval rating. the high water mark of his presidency so far. it remains to be seen whether
public opinion has changed as a result of president trump's wiretapping accusations against president obama and the hard slog over his health care bill. or if these low marks are merely an outlier. putting the president's approval rating in context though, his three immediate predecessors all had numbers that were above 50% two months into their presidencies. we'll be right back.
i joined the army in july of '98. our 18 year old was in an accident. when i call usaa it was that voice asking me, "is your daughter ok?" that's where i felt relief. we're the rivera family, and we will be with usaa for life. welcome back to mtp daily. fbi director comey warned the house intelligence committee today that the threat from russia isn't going away. while the investigation is ongoing, it's posht to make sure what happened in 2016 cannot happen again. >> they'll be back in 2020, maybe back in 2018, and one of the lessons they may draw from this is that they were successful because they introduced chaos and division and discord and so doubt about the nature of this amazing country of ours and our democratic process. it's possible their misreading
that as it worked. and so we'll come back and hit them again in 2020. i don't know, but i think we have to assume they're coming back. >> joining me now is michael mcfall, he was the u.s. ambassador to russia, nbc news contributor. >> thanks for joining us. first off -- >> thanks for having me. >> you heard director comey saying they could do it again, and expect that, but it's important also not make it look like we, like they were successful in doing this. what do you make of that? >> well, first of all, just analytically, they were successful. let's just be clear that they did attack us. they did steal data from one side. they published it in a way this affected the election. i think there's lots of agreement about that. and that was very clear today in the hearings that there was lots of agreement about that. what i don't think we've done is move on to the prescriptions, right? so we've had some conversation about the diagnostics, although i think there's a lot more to be said about that in term was what
they have the capacity to do that they did not do in 2016, but then we have to take some measures to protect ourselves. and so far, we haven't had that policy debate at all. >> talk to me about cooptees. people could have op optd but didn't know about it, explain what he meant. >> well, that is people that think they're dealing with russians and a business venture, but those russians are actually, you know, fsb officers or svr officers, intelligence officers that have an al tier your motivation for having those activities. obviously i can't speak about specifics, but this is something that they do well. they cultivate these kinds of relationships for russia's national interest. and it was deemed by mr. putin and his associates that it was in russia's national interest to, a, disrupt the democratic process, and they did that
wonderfully, including today by the way, they'd love to see us debating these things and calling and making these kinds of accusations partisan accusations, and number two, to help the candidate that they think would have been most helpful for their national interest. and in this case in 2016, that was donald trump. >> there was a lot that director comey could not answer today. and refused to answer today. and he warned viewers and members of the committee not to read into too much for what he would not comment on and what he would comment on. he would not comment though on anybody that the committee named. any of donald trump's associates. so at risk of doing exactly what he asked us not to do, did you read anything into that? >> well first of all, for me, just to echo what others have said on your program, one that he laid to rest the fact that the president of the united states accused the former president of the united states
falsely of a crime. he was very clear, crystal clear on that. and i hope that there will be some response from the white house from that. but number two, i didn't expect him to say what he did say. i, having dealt with these matters when i was in the government, was surprised at how much he did say. he said there was an investigation about contacts between the trump camp and russia officials. he wouldn't name names, but he made it very clear that that's an ongoing investigation. that is incredible news. that he was willing to say that on the record. >> michael mcfall, thank you for joining us. >> yeah, thanks for having me. now let's bring in tonight's panel. beth, let's start with you. the white house is not backing down from donald trump's wiretapping claim, at the same time, they're also saying that reporters should take their no for an sans when it comes to
whether or not there was any collusion between the trump campaign or anybody that trump knew and the russians. >> it's just so bizarre, katy. i mean there was a way for donald trump to get out of this with his dignity intact. when the senate intelligence committee came out with their statement saying they that found no evidence of any wiretapping, the guys on the house intelligence committee did the same thing, donald trump could come out, in a tweet, he wouldn't have to come out publicly and say, i asked the committees to do their investigation, they did, they brought back this information, thank you very much. now we're going to move on to health care and tax reform. there was a very easy way for him to get out of it, and yet they will not. we still had sean spicer in the briefing room today saying wait a minute, we're just at the start of the investigation, we're not saying anything's over at all. why do they continue to back themselves into this corner, making it about the media? raising questions about what's to be believed, who's to be believed. it's so confusing and it's so maddening and undignified for them. >> and the broadening, the
definition of wiretapping now to mean all surveillance, and that seems to be the excuse. and you know, said they'll likely take that hearing and say well they were talking specifically about trump tower. >> well, yeah, and they will probably find out that at some point that they were tracking the ambassador of russia and he met with general flynn trump tower. they'll probably pick up a conversation will come out in the hearings that that meeting happened, they heard the conversation or something to that affect and donald trump will say you see, they were surveilling trump tower. of course that couldn't be further from the truth, but what's interesting about the hearings, they were everything but the hearing topic. you had hearings into on the republican side into leaks. and hearings on the democratic side into punishment of trump officials. >> well that's exactly what i was going to get to, john. started off, could not be more partisan. nunes was talking about did the russians affect the election outcomes in michigan and pennsylvania? obviously where the votes were
closest and where donald trump that's why his victory became decisive. trey gowdy going after the leakers and even seeming to endorse the idea of reporters getting prosecuted for publishing those leaks. meanwhile the democrats are all going after the content of those leaks and whether or not trump or his team had any relationship with russia and nefarious relationship with russia. what do you make of the fact that something like this is just so clearly divided on partisan lines? >> look, when they started talking about the press possibly reporters going to jail, that got really dangerous for our democracy. we have a history of putting leakers in jail or prosecuting them, but we have a tradition, a very long tradition that the recipients of this information about how our government really works, the media, is protected. so now if we're going to talk about the espionage act, as it applies to reporters, which in some ways are a last line of defense for our democracy,
that's a very dangerous road. as far as trying to say that oh the election, the outcome wasn't affected by this michigan and wisconsin, that's besides the point, the question is whether there was any collusion with the russians and whether they influenced the election or attempted to influence the election. that was established today. so the question is what happens from here? you have a credibility crisis that the president has. you're going to make it hard for him on other issues like north korea, and increasingly having a legitimacy crisis. comey cannot be fired. he and mike pence are the only ones who are essentially unfireable in this administration. which means that he will take this investigation to where it leads, including, i think, donald trump's taxes. >> it makes you think about that kiss that donald trump blew to him right after the inauguration and whether or not he would still do that. >> comey goes in and out of favor constantly -- depending on which side you're on. >> what do you make of that?
are we living in a time where nothing can be seen through a bipartisan lens? nothing can be seen -- >> the days of the watergate community where everybody banded together as one to look into what happened and whether president nixon was involved in a criminal enterprise are long gone. and comey, he has been so central to everything in politics since last summer. he has been like forest gump basically. he shows up everywhere where it matters. and here he was again today, and maddening one side or maddening the other side, depending on what he says. >> but you can get back to some bipartisan as trump's poll numbers drop and drop. so if these members start seeing in their districts collapsed support for the president, they're going to start acting in a more bipartisan way. >> i also want to point out, before i can get into this, and a remarkable turn of events this hearing started with fbi director comey rebutting a president's tweet, and it wound down with his rebutting another
donald trump tweet which was that, they were saying that there was no affect on election outcomes. which they say they were not looking into. beth, jonathan, and susan. stay with us. still ahead, the battle over neil gorsuch begins. do democrats have the stomach for a filibuster? stay tuned. dear predictable, there's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced. our senses awake. our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, but they say...if you love something set it free. see you around, giulia
if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis isn't it time to let the real you shine through? introducing otezla, apremilast. otezla is not an injection, or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss.
your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you. still ahead on mtp daily, supreme court nominee neil
gorsuch faces resistance from democrats. we are joined next to discuss the democrat's end game, but first here's the cnbc market wrap. thanks, katy. mixed bag for stocks today with investors looking to what the fed will do with interest rates next. the dow is down eight points down, s&p off by four. the nasdaq up half a point. apple stock hitting a record high ahead of the release of the iphone 8. apple is also investing heavily to build augmented reality glasses that will work with the iphone. tarkt is looking to revamp it's food section. the company has hired an executive from kroger, the nation's largest supermarket chain. that's it from cnbc, first in business worldwide. hinking a. alright, and before that? you mean after that? no, i'm talking before that. do you have things you want to do before you retire? oh yeah sure... ok, like what? but i thought we were supposed to be talking about investing for retirement? we're absolutely doing that. but there's no law you can't make the most of today. what do you want to do?
i'd really like to run with the bulls. wow. yea. hope you're fast. i am. get a portfolio that works for you now and as your needs change. investment management services from td ameritrade. youthat's why you drink ensure. sidelined. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you.
neil gorsuch. after hours of opening stapts, we heard from the nominee for the first time since the president announced his pick back in january. >> sitting here, i'm acutely aware of my own imperfections, but i floej each of you and to the american people if i am confirmed, i will do all of my powers permit to be a faithful servant of the constitution and laws of this great nation. >> democrats set up how they plan to grill the nominee and willingness to stand up to the president. and even though this was gorsuch's hearing, democrats weren't quite ready to let go of that last nominee, they brought up merck garland quite a bit. but how will the democrats resistance take shape and how far will it go? joining me now from capitol hill is hawaii democratic senator who is a member of the senate judiciary committee. senator, thank you for joining me. >> sure. >> what is the goal for the
democrats right now? are they going to try and block gorsuch's confirmation as retribution for merck garland? >> we're very acutely aware that this is not just a hearing about filling one vacancy in the supreme court because the court will be making decisions that will impact all of our lives for decades to come. and clearly neil gorsuch will be, should he be confirmed, will be sitting on that court for decades to come. so of course we will have a lot of questions about his judicial philosophy as it relates to a woman's right to choose, corporate interests over individual rights, et cetera. >> are you open to fill bustering neil gosh such? >> we haven't gotten to that point yet. we're going to go through many, many hours of questioning neil gorsuch. as i said, his judicial philosophy is relevant because afterall, it's justice scalia's judicial philosophy that led justice scalia to be very
conservative on that court. and i have a lot of questions about neil gorsuch. and i see a pattern to his decisions where he will go to some lengths to support a corporate -- corporation's rights over the rights of a potential injured person, for example. >> if you the democrats -- if you guys decide that you are not going to accept neil gorsuch, and you filibuster him, are you open, this is if mitch mcconnell doesn't go nuclear. are you open to leaving this seat open for three and a half years? >> let's hope it doesn't come to that. even though it's -- it was very clear that the republicans are perfectly happy to involve for purely political reasons their desire not to even have meetings or hearing on merrick garland, we're not going to do the same thing to this nominee. we obviously are going to go through the hearing process. but let me just get back to the pattern that i see with neil gorsuch which really is
troubling for me. he made a decision, for example, or he wrote an opinion that turned on whether or not a corporation would be fined on his reading of whether or not there was a safety issue involving a hole or an opening on the floor that created a safety issue. and he said, well, the corporation didn't need to be fined because of the way he read the requirement and the other judges on the court said his reasoning was nonsense. so he goes to some lengths to hold for corporations against individuals. >> senator, sounds like you're leaning towards no. >> i have a lot of serious questions because this person is going to be on the court for decades. and he's going to be making, probably decisions that will impact a woman's right to choose, whether or not we're going is to have unfettered campaign contributions so that the voices of individuals will be drowned out. whether a corporation's
religious rights trumps an individual's religious rights. these are all going to impact our lives far long, long time. >> since it seems like -- since would you entertain another nominee. >> i would entertain whatever nominees, you know, i look at each nominee as that person comes before us. and each nominee should be subjected to the kind of questions and raises the concerns that we have. >> if neil gorsuch were to in effect just replace scalia, become another scalia, would that be acceptable for you? >> to keep people from filing a lawsuit because they support these mandatory provisions. so this is more than a drift on
the robert's courts and i would not be doing my job if i simply rubber stamped yet another person who are going to continue that drift, that does not protect individual rights or minority rights. and that's something thafs really happy that judge gorsuch told me when he visited with me, he said title three courts are there to protect minority rights. of course i looked at his cases to see whether his decisions, his opinions reflected a concern for minority rights and i did not see that. and that's why i have a lot of questions. >> so if you don't find him acceptable, potentially don't find the next nominee acceptable, if there is a next nominee and you get to that point. would you be open to leaving this seat vacant for three and a half years? >> well, i have a feeling that, you know, that may -- regardless of whether or not we'll get another nominee or not, i will continue to do my job as i see fit to question every nominee on their judicial philosophy and where they are going to come from on issues that are really important to people in this
country. >> senator, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. coming up, president trump hits the road again to settle health care bill. but even members of his own party aren't buying into it. stay tuned. liberty mutual stood with me when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night. hold on dad... liberty did what? yeah, liberty mutual 24-hour roadside assistance helped him to fix his flat so he could get home safely. my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. don't worry - i know what a lug wrench is, dad. is this a lug wrench? maybe? you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
than two hours to rally support for the gop plan to repeal and replace the affordable care act. vice president mike pence was also in kentucky earlier this month. and it's no coincidence the trump administration is targeting the state. kentucky is the home of senator rand paul, one of the republican senators opposed to the health care proposal. and arguably the bill's most vocal critic. and kentucky sals one of the states that has arguably benefitted the most from the passage of obamacare. more than 20% of the state's residents did not have health insurance in 2013, fast forward to 2015, after the law took effect and that was down to 7.5%. the key beneficiaries of obamacare in kentucky were older, poorer, and more rural residents. those are some of the key demographics that helmed elect president trump, but they're also the ones who would suffer the most under the republican plan. we'll be right back with whether the president can breathe life back into his health care bill coming up.
welcome back, it's time for the lid. beth, jonathan, susan, susan, talking about this in the break, what do you think donald trump is going to say tonight when he takes the stage in louisville? >> i don't think there's any way he will not talk about the hearings today. probably his first shot against director comey will not been a patriot's fan, once he gets past that, i think he actually will go and we saw a little sneak peek in sean spicer's press conference today -- not press conference -- >> briefing. >> thank you. with his briefing today. but i think donald trump's going to double down on everything. and he will -- you mentioned earlier in the show, his poll numbers are down. when his back isle to wall, he gets very scrappy. >> sometimes he stays on a teleprompter and does not leave that teleprompter. >> that's going to be notable. is he going to stay and read what has been prepared for him or is he going to need to punch
back? and if he does, is it the media, is it democrats, is it the leakers? is it comey? is it a combination of all four. >> yes. >> i think the whole thing is counterproductive. i don't disagree, i think he will do of all four? >> yes. i don't disagree with you. but he's allegedly there in kentucky to sell his health care plan. how is he going to convince all these members of congress not happy with it as its written to walk the plank for them when he's under criminal investigation. it's already a dicey proposition. when he goes out attacking people and reminding everybody about what was discussed in those hearings today, he's sort of pushing those persuadable republicans further and further away. the ones he needs to get on board before thursday when the vote is scheduled. >> there was a moment right after the hearing where chairman nunez came out and said something that's dropping jaws. stay with us because the video's wonky but you can hear the sound. take a listen. >> i haven't heard of page and
all those other people. i mean, there are about five names mentioned. >> i don't know those people. >> you've not haert of carter page or roger stone? >> no. >> you've never heard stories about any people? >> i've heard some but more names than that. >> chairman nunez also a member of donald trump's transition has not heard of roger stone or carter page. he knew of manafort from the convention. >> to use a word used a lot in reference to donald trump, that's not credible. he has clearly heard of these individuals. he's doing the same thing that sean spicer and the rest of them are doing which is backing and filling, you know, trying to finesse these issues. and the problem is in today's media environment, you can't finesse them forever. eventually you have somebody with great credibility like comey coming forward and saying, look, we got to call a spade a
spade. the president was not correct. his tweets were not accurate. and then so eventually facts are as we've heard stubborn things. they can be held off for a certain amount of time and then they find their way in. and i think that applies to the president in kentucky tonight too. the people down there really know a lot about health care because kinect which is what theirs is called has been successful in getting huge numbers of them insurance. they are not going to be happy with a plan that throws them off their insurance. it's a big political problem for donald trump. >> but chairman nunez is not a member of the trump white house. this is not somebody trying to defend -- allegedly not trying to defend the president. >> he was on the transition team. >> he was -- >> do you think that that's -- i do believe that you saw chaffetz and him being quite fair and --
>> do you believe he didn't know who roger stone is? >> i find it very hard. i think stone will be very upset if that's the case. >> that's true. >> and let's not forget the republicans had a deliberate strategy in that hearing today. they were talking about leaks and they were talking about did this affect the vote in michigan, pennsylvania, and wisconsin. for him to then go down the route of do you know who these people are, is it possible they engaged in behavior, that would take him off the message of all the republicans in that room. and he was running that room. so he really for self-preservation and to protect the strategy, he couldn't engage. >> they're sticking with their talking points. what worries me is that trump tonight is going to go after the press big time. >> that was their point. and gowdy made it clear he thinks the press should be prosecuted. >> and rand paul has also said that over the weekend. so if we get into a situation now where reporters just doing their jobs, you know, if somebody brings you a leak and it's news and it's in the national interest, you publish it. if that is suddenly going to
send you to jail, we're in a different america. >> the only reason we're talking about this is because people were leaking to reporters and reporters were putting it out there the only reason he was fired from his job was because there were reports out that said he misled the vice president. that's why he doesn't have his job. oftentimes we are learning that the trump team was not truthful because there are leaks that are showing they were not truthful. >> and by trying to destroy the press has made enemies of them. what's going to happen with reporters? they're going to go out and get their own story. so on top -- not in retribution, but because they have no -- there's no other way to get information. so you go after those stories differently. and that's clearly what we see in some of that. >> reporter wills go after any story they can get their hands on that's going to make news. it's not the matter of being enemy to one over the other.
comment on. >> but he did open up about a few surprising things. for example, he has very strong feelings about a certain winning football team. >> i hate the new england the place for politics. >> and even a steely eyed guy like comey sometimes needs a time-out during an hours' long hearing. >> i'm not made of steel, so i might need to take a quick break. >> but perhaps our favorite thing we learned about comey today is he may be a fan of a certain classic '80s fan. >> were you engaged in mccarthyism. >> i try hard not to engage in any isms of any kind >> or any for that matter. isms in my opinion is not good. a person should not believe in an ism. >> we appreciate the moechlt moments of levity. that's all for tonight. we'll be back with more "mtp
daily" tomorrow. now to "for the record with greta." hey, greta. >> good evening. in a rare public hearing a short time ago james comey taking the historic and rare step of confirming a counterintelligence investigation into whether there was coordination between the trump campaign and russian officials. >> as you know, our practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations. especially those investigations that involve classified matters. but in unusual circumstances where it is in the public interest, it may be appropriate to do so. as justice department policies recognize. this is one of those circumstances. i have been authorized by the department of justice to confirm that the fbi as part of oush counterintelligence mission is investigating the russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.