tv MSNBC Live MSNBC March 30, 2017 8:00am-9:01am PDT
adversary, and we must engage in a whole of government approach to combat russian active measures. the vice chairman and i realize if we politicize this process, our efforts will likely fail. >> this is not innuendo or false allegations. this is not fake news. this is actually what happened to us. >> we're hearing a lot of praise for burr and warner, simply for being next to each other and promising a fair investigation. that's where washington is these days, folks. it's a rare show of bipartisanship to do your job. but compare that to the house intelligence committee's investigation into russia, which is stalled and, some would argue, collapsing. after unilaterally cancelling hearings and meetings, nunes accusing democrats of doing the stalling. >> appears like the democrats are out there, not serious about
the investigation. >> are you worried about being able to work with them? >> we're concerned about this and want to keep the committee bipartisan. at the end of the day, we're going to do an investigation, with or without them. >> you heard the mention of the ranking member on intel. >> we can't have a credible investigation if one of the members, let alone the chairman, is freelancing. >> just in time for the hearing, russian president vladimir putin this morning, absolutely denying that his government meddled in the election. >> mr. president, i want to be clear about this. you and the russian government did never try to influence the outcome of the u.s. presidential election, and there will be no evidence found? >> translator: ronald reagan once debating about taxes and addressing the americans said, watch my lips.
he said, no. watch my lips, no. we've got all the angles covered with a team of reporters and experts. let's start with the latest on the hearing. nbc news capitol hill correspondent casey hunt joins me now. a lot of documents to go over. witnesses to be called. how did the committee decide to kick this off? >> well, i think what you're seeing in public is really just kind of laying groundwork for the context of their broad investigation. this hearing does not feature any of the gold faced names we've seen on the house side or any of the people that we expect that the senate intelligence committee to interview, that could make major headlines. jared kushner, of course, one of the people the committee wants to talk to. as far as we know, that has not been scheduled yet. as they start to work through all the documents that they're able to see. so this is really a hearing that features academics, former national security officials.
i think we can show you the names of the witnesses today. a former national intelligence officer. as well as the one person who stands out to me who we'll hear from this afternoon, keith alexander, the former director of the national security agency. that's kind of what you're seeing unfold here in public today. it's really what is going on behind the scenes, i think, that is critical for this senate intelligence committee investigation. take a look at what james langford, one of the committee members, a republican, i might add, had to say about this today. >> i think when people see not only the use of disinformation but their ability in other countries, where they have actually planted false information into people's computer files, this should send a chill up anyone's spine. >> senator langford this morning on "morning joe" wants to get to the bottom of collusion of the
trump campaign and russian officials. are you surprised a republican went that far? >> no, not surprised. this is a committee that gave me so much confidence yesterday, with chairman burr, where members on both sides understand how serious this is and how we have to get to the bottom of it, wherever it leads. that obviously involves a level of contacts between the trump campaign and the russians before the election. >> and i apologize, chris. that was actually the vice chairman of the committee, warner, who i caught up with in the hallway before the hearing. i had asked him about what james langford, the republican from oklahoma, had to say earlier today. we told "morning joe" he wants to get to the bottom of any potential collusion. he used the word collusion. between trump associates and russians. that's something that most republicans have not been willing to say publicly. clearly, that is becoming the focus of this investigation. we've also seen a rare kind of public display of bipartisanship, attempts to underscore credibility of this
committee from chirmairman burr. the chairman and vice chairman with the press conference yesterday. i think that's part of what you're seeing play out in public today, as well. >> kasie, thank you for that. i know you'll be reporting throughout the day for what happens in the hearing room. i want to bring in the democratic senator of hawaii, member of the judiciary and armed services committee. good morning. >> aloha. >> you used to be on the intelligence committee, as well. >> yes. >> i wonder what you think the focus of this should be. is collusion the proper focus? what are the questions you think need to be asked here? >> we certainly need to get to the bottom of the russian interference and attempts to interfere with our elections and our democratic processes. and any connections there may be between the trump team and russian interests need to be ferried out. i think that the chairman of the house intelligence committee has totally compromised the house's efforts, or that committee's
efforts, to get to the bottom of this in a way that we feel assured that it will be independent. >> among the people who are going to be the high-profile folks to go before the committee, jared kushner, of course, the son-in-law of the president. i wonder what you'd want to know from him. >> i certainly would want to know what kind of communications occurred between the trump team before, during and after the election, and russian interests. we need to get to the bottom of this. i served on the intelligence committee, also, and it is very serious. this russian interference. not just with our elections in the u.s. but they're certainly in there with china, destabilized nato and interfered with the elections in europe. for the sake of our democracy, we need to get to the bottom of this. >> let's talk about our democracy and where we are right now. i mentioned earlier, there's been a lot of praise for the
republican and democrat who are at the top of the senate intelligence committee. a lot of contrast being drawn to what is going on in the house side. is this where we are in washington? you know the american people paying these salaries. is this where we are, that suddenly, the way you get praise is because you've decided to actually do your job? >> well, i'm really glad that at least on the senate side, chairman burr and vice chair warner have come forward. they know the public is really wondering, what is going on here, and who can they have faith in? i'm really glad they stepped forward in a bipartisan way to say, we're going to get to the bottom of this in a way that people can feel assured that it is an independent investigation. so speaking of independent, we need to have a special council to get to the bottom of this. this isn't a either/or investigation. the fbi is doing their
investigation. our senate intelligence committee is going to look into this. i think we should also have special council. >> in the meantime, you have vladimir putin who, this morning in an interview, says, absolutely, we didn't do it. any accusation that we meddled in the u.s. election is lies. let me play for you. kasie hunt alluded to this, what senator langford had to say about vladimir putin. take a listen. >> obviously, we've got to get connections, whether there was connection with the trump campaign, any collusion with any russian officials. there's no question now that russians were trying to affect our election and they were trying to engage and destabilize, the exact same thing they do across europe itself. >> you have a republican, and not a lot of them have done this, who have gone and said what we heard senator langford say. you're a member of the armed services committee. what's the right way, in your mind, of dealing with putin? >> well, he is not our friend, so we have 17 intelligence agencies that have said, in no
uncertain terms, that russia inter feared with our election. we know that they are trying to destabilize nato. we know what they're trying to do. so trusting putin over what our own people can do with an independent investigation is being just totally naive. >> good to see you, senator. thank you so much for taking the time. >> thank you. aloha. >> aloha. let me bring in my panel. i wish it was more hawaii-like weather in washington. a former spokesperson for the u.s. mission to the u.n. and former spokesperson for terrorism and financial intelligence at the u.s. department of treasury. tim carney is the commentary editor for the washington ex examiner. good to see you both. you have people on this panel who, i guess you could say, have been professional questioners at one point in their career. four former private practice lawyers. harris was a state prosecutor. compare that with what senator
langford said, there is no such thing as a non-partisan investigation. do these five help get to the bottom of it? can they get to the bottom of it? or is he right, no such thing as a non-partisan investigation? >> i think lately, it's difficult to find an investigation going on that is not partisan. i believe the former spokesperson for the department of justice, matthew miller, said this before. there needed to have been independent panels, independent prosecutors. i don't think it's too late for that, but i think judging from nunes's activity earlier, i don't have a lot of faith in the fact that all of this will be non-partisan. but i do think that there is opportunity for the senate to e investigate further. i think the panel will be helpful but i think the testimony by jared kushner will prove very valuable. >> when you look at nunes, here's what speaker paul ryan
said this morning. he doesn't think president trump is under investigation for ties with russia, but this is what he said nunes told him about the secret documents. let's take a listen. >> he had told me that, like a whistleblower type person, had given him some information that was new. >> did you encourage him to tell the president about it? >> no. but i told him to add it to his investigation. >> you at no time said, whatever you find out, you should tell president trump about it? >> he was going to brief everybody. i knew he was going to go and brief. what chairman nunes said is he came into possession of new information that he thought was valuable to the investigation, and he was going to go and inform people about it. >> but nunes hasn't shared the information yet. what's going on? >> it certainly seems like he is -- if he is trying to help the president, he is hurting the president. running to the president before going to the democrats and not sh sharing what his sources are -- >> you have the speaker saying
he was going to go and share it but he hasn't yet. >> we don't know who his sources were, and he's declared flatly that he is not going to do that. so we're in a situation where this is why i think people are turning to the senate. envelope republican even republicans say they don't have confidence that nunes will carry it out. when you look at burr, he is appearing on stage with warner. i think nunes has take away some of the credibility of the house investigation. >> do you think that they can get to the bottom of it, at least as far as their powers allow them to over on the senate side, or is langford right to some extent, there's no such thing as a non-partisan investigation. >> so some extent, there is no non-partisan investigation. party lines are clear, in the house but also the senate. it is hard to do it. hopefully they can get to the bottom of what was russia's role in this election. but it is much harder, the next question. the next question is, how did
trump and russia collude? that's a question where, i think, it is going to be really hard to any bipartisan agreement. both sides have too much at stake. >> meantime, you have newsweek reporting that fbi director james comey wanted to go public with the russia investigation last summer. here's what he said last night about concerns over whether he could be impartial. >> the last year -- been almost a year now -- has been both difficult and easier than you might think. what makes it easy is, we're not on anybody's side ever. we're not considering whose ox will be gored by this or that. whose misfortunates are helped by this or that. we don't care. and we can't care. >> he is under fire from so many fronts and he has a record, particularly on the democratic party, progressive question. we all know why. is his record able to support
that he can be impartial as he claims? >> it is a bit difficult. i wish i could say that it does. because i think right now, he is really at the center of this fire storm, and we really are depending on him to conduct an impartial investigation. however, his record doesn't necessarily show perfect impartiality. we're not -- we don't need to get into the history of what happened during the campaign and hillary clinton's e-mails and when he went out publicly and, you know, how much information he had backed up to go out publicly. i don't want to get into that. but at the same time, it does undermine his own credibility sometimes. that being said, i don't believe entirely this newsweek story about him wanting to go public. there's a lot of holes in the story, a lot that doesn't make sense, being been a spokesperson for the u.s. government. it is very rare for a principal to come out with an op-ed,
saying i want to publish this on my name. i'd ask the story. >> while we have the hearing going on over on the senate side, and we're going to talk about the ivanka trump controversy and her decision to become an official member of the administration a little later, the president, who you would think would want to not add fuel to the fire, tweeted this morning. the freedom caucus will hurt the entire republican agenda if they don't get on the team and fast. we must fight them and dems in 2018. freedom caucus member congressman jim jordan took less that be an hour to respond. >> not here to assign blame to anyone. i'm not here to point to the future. i'm focused on doing what we told the voters we'll do. let's forget the blame and what may happen in the future. let's do what we said. that's what the freedom caucus and republicans are committed to. >> tim, it sounds like the president is declaring war on a faction of his own party. what does this accomplish for him? >> well, if you try to -- i
think a lot of us in the media make a mistake of trying to find a grand strategy in what trump is doing. it could have been that he was angry sitting in the white house and had his phone on him and tweeted it out. republicans are argngry at the freedom caucus and try to be more diplomatic. >> he was angry last friday when it fell apart. >> who knows what his mood is? when he has his hands on the blackberry or whatever he used to tweet out, that's the story here. you see jordan saying, we're not going to retaliate. there are 36 or 30 something guys in the freedom caucus and some might say, i'm done with this president. that's what i'd be looking for. these are not guys with strong party loyalty. they're ready to fight for themselves, for their constituents, for their ideology. trump will probably get over this, but maybe some of the members won't. >> thank you both very much. coming up, ivanka trump will soon be sworn in as assistant to the president, though not so long ago, she said she wouldn't
new ethical questions this morning for the trump white house after i vacvanka announce she's becoming a part of her dad's administration. kristen welker joins me from the white house. what exactly will her role be, and what the is white house saying about the appointment? >> her new title is going to be
assistant to the president. this achieves a couple of goals for the white house. first, it sort of codifies ivanka trump as a part of her father's inner circle. she's already had a seat at the table, including with foreign leaders, as well as panels here about the economy, about women in business. but it also aims to put to rest some of those ethical concerns, by effectively making ivanka subject to the same transparency laws as federal employees. he me read you a statement from the white house. quote, ivanka's service as an unpaid employee furthers our commitment to ethics, tra transpare transparent and compliance. ivanka adding, throughout this process i've been working closely and in good faith with the white house counsel and my personal counsel for this role. for this president, loyalty is a key concern. one of the key reasons that he
brings people into his inner circle. of course, there's no one he trusts more than his family. we are told that ivanka trump will be officially sworn in. so far, no date has been given for that. >> thank you. with me to talk more about this, rachel abrams of the "new york times," one of the reporters who broke the story, and our chief legal correspondent, ari melber. i'll play ivanka trump, what she said after the election about what her role would be in the trump white house on "60 minutes." >> people think you're going to be part of the administration, i have been -- ivanka. >> no. i'm going to be a daughter. i said throughout the campaign that i'm very passionate about certain issues and that i want to fight for them. there are a lot of things i feel deeply, strongly about, not in a formal, administrative capacity. >> ari, what are the legal questions here? >> the biggest legal question is what happens if there is some kind of conflict of interest that can arise if the president
later has to choose between what's good for the country and his family. the security clearance, the other obligations mean that ultimately, she is trying to be like a formal federal employee and meet the standards, but unlikely to be treated or fired like one. we she can't be promoted into the cabinet or anything like that. the 1967 nepotism law forbids that. there is this loophole legally as an adviser. >> when she announced last week she was going to be an informal adviser and was in the process of getting security clearance, experts said the move wasn't good because it'd allow her to avoid financial disclosure rules. she said, i have heard the concerns some have with my advising the president in my personal capacity while voluntarily complying with rules. i'll be an unpaid employee, subject to the same rules as other federal employees. what does that mean for a practical matter? what financial information will she have to turn over, and will
the public see it? >> to me, i would say, look, what we'll see from her is what jared kushner provided in his advisory role. you get the office of government ethics information. what they own, any divestment actions taken. we can see that in the public well realm, as well. that's what normal, federal appointments would provide. it is not like they get, i think, a special celebration of that, but they're back up to the normal standard, rather than what was seen before as an attempt to evade it. >> there are two sets of questions here. one is the legal, ethical part. the other people are raising are about qualifications. we've seen ivanka sit in on meetings with world leaders like angela merkel, justin trudeau. when robert f kennedy came, he has been a lawyer and a counsel for the senate but people didn't
think he has the credentials. the question here, what are her qualifications? >> in every administration, both republican and democratic, there have been people with questionable credentials that serve in the white house. one of the things that is bothering people is this nepotism issue and the fact that she is going to be in the president's inner circle. but as far as her qualifications are concerned, the fact that she has her father's ear is really one of the biggest reasons why she's there. i think people are kind of hoping she's going to be sort of a backstop to him. we already know she had some role in advising him on his lgbt proposed legislation. really, when it comes to her qualifications, she's not the first person to serve in the west wing where her qualifications are debatable. it is a matter of the fact that she is, in fact, his daughter. >> and the question, i think, some people also raised last week, you know, will there be sort of special circumstances for them? a lot of eyebrows raised when they're in the middle of the
health care fight, and jared and ivanka, both people with offices in close proximity in the west wing, took off a couple days to go skiing in aspen. i suppose the question is also raised, does she get treated differently? is he treated differently? >> i think one of the big things to remember about her, also, is she has a trust. as part of the trust, she has an independent ethics adviser. the adviser tells her when she could have a potential conflict. she has the option of vetoing o potential deals her brand does. when she leaves for the weekend or doesn't participate in matters, there isn't transparency about why she might be doing that. there might be the expectation that she should take part in some of the health care decisions and debates because of the fact she's been promoting a maternity policy, for example. we don't really have a lot of transparency into what she's doing or why. >> rachel abrams, who broke the story, thank you so much for being with us.
ari melber, as always, thanks. >> thank you. as the senate intill jens committee holds its first hearing into russian meddling into the election this morning, vladimir put sain says russia didn't do it. the man who moderated the discussion joins me live from russia. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ lease a 2017 lincoln mkx for $369 a month. only at your lincoln dealer. kevin, meet yourkeviner. kevin kevin kevin kevin
well, the senate intelligence committee right now continues its investigation into russia's alleged interference in the november election. in russia, it's diplomacy and oil also on the agenda. as vladimir putin sits down with the presidents of iceland and finland at the arctic forum. jeff moderated this morning's panel. jeff, what exactly did president putin have to say? >> he said no, we didn't do it. that was the message, chris. i asked him directly, did russia meddle in the u.s. election process? he used the term "read my lips, no." of course, not everybody will be convinced by the russian president's performance and, of course, we have a senate intelligence committee process to go through.
but the view being expressed here was there is something else going on in america right now. we did not meddle with the u.s. election process. and vladimir putin says there are people who are spreading lies about russia. let's listen to what he said and reply -- >> i have to interrupt you a second. we're going to go to the podium where paul ryan is on capitol hill. >> many of the initiatives are designed to protect jobs, especially for america's energy workers. with one bill, we stop the rule that would have wiped out abo about 1/3 of the jobs in coal country alone. combine our actions with the steps the president has taken to jump start pipelines and reverse president obama's assault on affordable energy. these things will get people back to work. and after years of sluggish growth, give a real boost to our economy. with all these measures, we are doing something fundamental. that is the point, i think, is worth seeing here. for too long,u
un-elected bureaucrats dictates the rules and the rest of government going along with it. now, we are turning power from washington back to states and communities to the elected branch of government. we are giving people more control and more of a say in the decisions they are made in their classrooms, at their businesses, on their lands. this is good progress and we're going to make more in weeks to come. phil? >> i know your policy of not responding to all the president's tweets but this involves your conference, saying the freedom caucus, we must fight them in 2018. sounds like he is calling for -- do you agree you need to fight the freedom caucus's agenda? >> i understand the president's frustration. 90% of our conference is to repeal and replace obamacare. 10% are not. it's not enough to pass a bill. we're close. what i am encouraging members to do is keep talking with each other until we can pass this
bill. but it is understandable the president is frustrated that we haven't gotten to where we need to go. because this is something we all said we would do. so he is expressing his frustration. you all know he does that in various forms, including twitter. i understand his frustration. >> the senate today is moving forward with their russia investigation, exposing the real immediate danger that russia poses to america's democracy. the house committee seems to be bogged down in politics, focusing more on the president's tweets. are they missing the big picture? >> i want the house committee to have a full, thorough and bipartisan investigation. get everything out there. follow the facts wherever they go. get to the truth. that's going to take some time. i've -- i'm confident they're going to do that. i think you're right, this has gotten a little political. let's take a pause and let's get all the evidence, all the documents and find out what happened. what i'm worried about with russia is, you've got elections coming online in europe.
you know, this year. so the russians clearly are trying to meddle in other countries elections. we have to help our allies prevent that from happening and uncover it. we have to find out what they tried to do here. we've got to make sure we got to the bottom of that, wherever the facts go. we need to do more to help our allies guard against this invasion into their democracy from russia. >> thank you, mr. speaker. a number of republicans i spoke to this week said you need the $880 billion from medicaid savings from the health care bill in order to lower the revenue baseline and achieve significant -- >> no, it's the other way around. not medicaid. it is the revenue. you know how this works. you're a budget guy. >> you agree there is a direct correlation between the medicaid -- >> no, there is not a direct correlation. not correct. somebody is misunderstanding how baselines work here. the medicaid savings, nothing to
do with tax reform. it is the revenue baseline. it is the obamacare taxes that themselves affect tax reform. here's the way the math works. if we repeal the obamacare taxes, then that is a revenue baseline we don't have to put into tax reform. if we don't repeal the obamacare taxes, it is my position that we're just going to leave the taxes over there with obamacare and reform the rest of the irs tax code. but it does make tax reform harder. it is all about the revenue baseline. nothing to do with the spending baseline. >> explain this idea of not wanting the president to work with -- >> oh, yeah, sure. >> on the health care here. also, a trump ally says, the next time that the freedom caucus calls the tuesday group, we should hang up the phone. he said, we're not going to hit health care again until 2019. you say we're close. why should anyone believe that? >> well, because about 90% of the conference is there.
10% are not. >> 90% does get you there. >> that's exactly right. 95% does. that's why i say we're close, because we are. here's the point i'm making here. the democrats aren't for repealing obamacare. we are. we work with democrats all the time. look, murray and i did a budget agreement. we have long histories of working with democrats. but i don't think it is a stretch of the mind to suggest that the democrats disagree with us on repealing obamacare. they're not going to help us repeal obamacare. that's my point. so if we're going to do what we said we would do, which is repeal and replace obamacare, and save the american health care system, something tells me the democrats aren't going to help us repeal obamacare. they're the ones who created it in the first place. yeah? >> speaker, fiscal '17, will you send an 11 bill to the house? will it fund the wall and contain -- >> the bill hasn't been completed yet. still negotiations.
premature to get into the contents of the bill. we've already done dod, so there are 11 other bills we would pass. the question is, is it one bill, two bills? i think that's one for the senate to decide, how they'll package the bill. it is about their calendar and how they work. but our goal is to work on the rest of the bills. that's what our appropriators are negotiating. the negotiations aren't done. it'd been premature to get into the contents of the bills. >> will you send a -- >> we already sent dod and i anticipate we'll send the rest. >> how should house republicans approach the lawsuit on the affordable care act, given the law remains in place? would taking the cost sharing deductions away destabilize the market? >> yes. all right over there? okay. that didn't sound too good. okay? yes. i think the answer is yes on your last part. the lawsuit is going to take some time. this is a separation of powers
issue. i don't know when the lawsuit is going to get wrapped up. i think it goes into may. if we end up going to court, that could take us months. so it is a continue -- it is an unresolved issue. >> but the payments should be continued and the trump administration should -- >> while the lawsuit is litigated, then the administration funds these benefits. that's how they've been doing it, and i don't see any change in that. >> to follow up on that, you just said the $7 billion, this would destabilize america if the lawsuit is successful. why not drop the lawsuit or work with the administration? >> we don't want to work the lawsuit because we believe in the separation of powers. we believe in congress retaining the law making power. this lawsuit has not run its full course. while this lawsuit is running its course, the administration is exercising their discretion with respect to csrs. our plan a is to repeal and replace obamacare. and have that transition occur, where the markets are
stabilized. that's what we hope to achieve. >> last question. >> so the health bill seems to be a little bit in limbo and you're encouraging members to talk to each other. will you commit that there will be another vote on this bill or a similar bill? >> i'm not going to commit to when and what the vote is going to look like because it is my job to help make sure that house republicans can coalesce and come together and draw consensus. what i'm encouraging members to do is figure out what solutions get us to a bill that everyone can vote for and pass. that's the kind of conversations that are occurring. this is too big of an issue to not get right. so i'm not going to put some kind of artificial deadline on saving the american health care system from an oncoming collapse. it is too important. let's forget about all the beltway talk here and think about, there are families that are hurting. there are families that aren't getting the health care they need. proceed yum premiums are going up double digits. plans are pulling out of
marketplaces. no one has a choice in 1/3 of american counties. this is a problem. the insurance companies are telling us it is going to get worse. so it is really important that we do something to fix this problem. that's going to take us to continue to work to get consensus. i'm not going to put a time line on it. i want to make sure we get this done right. thank you very much, everybody. appreciate it. paul ryan answering questions. first, obviously, about the tweet this morning from the president, who went after the freedom caucus, saying he is understandably frustrated, obviously. so is the speaker himself. but then the understatement, perhaps, that he made, which was that it's gotten a little political, the house side of the investigation into possible ties to russia. we were just talking to cnbc's jeff who moderated the morning panel with president putin. you asked him point-blank about it and he said, lies, all lies, right? >> yeah, absolutely.
in fact, he said, "read my lips. no, we did not interfere." then he went on to say there are domestic reasons in the united states why everybody thinks there are reds under the bed right now. let's have a listen to the clip where he talks about the lies. >> translator: we perceive the united states as a great power, with which we want to establish a good partnership relations. other things are fictional and provocation, lies. all these are used for domestic american political agendas. the anti-russian card is played by different political forces inside the united states. to trade on that and consolidate their positions.
>> so there you go, chris. the comments from president putin surrounding the senate investigation. let me send it back to you. >> thank you, jeff, who moderated the panel for us. then there is this from president put than morning. a preview of his tentive meeting with secretary of state rex tillerson and the two nations joined fight against isis. >> that is one of the topics, fighting terrorism. you know better than myself. however, that -- not the efficient work we need to interact not only with the department of state but also cia, without constructive work with our colleagues in these agencies, we'll not attain positive results. >> tillerson in turkey today to meet with the nation's president ahead of his trip to brussels for his first ever nato summit friday. joining me now, former u.s.
ambassador to nato. good to see you. i have to ask you, we have clips of putin and what you thought about that. >> well, what do you expect putin to say, right? >> yeah. >> of course we didn't do that. as far as tillerson goes, i think russia is still trying to hold open the door they could work with the trump administration. see what that administration might be willing to offer them. i think they are a little concerned right now that they haven't been getting the gifts that they were hoping to get from the trump administration. sanctions on ukraine -- or because of ukraine, for instance, are still in place. >> yeah. in the meantime, you have this situation with tillerson. he wasn't going to go first to nato. 27 other ministers. a chance for them, for many of them, to meet him for the first time. it is a different situation than you had with john kerry or cl hillary clinton. they were known quantities here. what do they want to get in is this in, first part, get a measure of the man? >> first off, i think tillerson always wanted to go to nato. there was a scheduling conflict. it's been resolved so he is going.
europeans have paid close attention to our election. and what's happened since then. during the election campaign, there was a lot of criticism about, you know, europe, about defense spending. the president suggesting, maybe we won't come to the defense of our allies. nato is obsolete. since then, we've had terrific statements from vice president pence, mattis, tillerson, the president himself. nato is a great organization. we are going to be there. but we need europe to do more. they've heard both and are curious to see, what is tillerson going to tell us now? how committed is the u.s.? are we sure about this? they need a little more reassurance. they also need a push to say, they've actually got to do their share on defense spending, as well. >> he's going to echo what the president has been saying, which is, you guys have to ante up. are they going to listen? >> i think they've already begun to listen. if you look at it. several countries have already increased defense spending, even under the obama administration.
since then, for instance, the german finance minister saying, germany can reach the 2% target in a few years, as well. about eight years. >> good to see you, my friend. appreciate your time. this morning, house speaker paul ryan saying he is worried the president may work with democrats to change obamacare, not repeal it. is he setting up for a new battle with president trump? we'll talk about that next. excitement. goodbye. ♪ thrivent mutual funds. managed by humans, not robots. before investing, carefully read and consider fund objectives, risks, charges and expenses in the prospectus at thriventfunds.com.
he's a nascar champion who's she's a world-class swimmer who's stared down the best in her sport. but for both of them, the most challenging opponent was... pe blood clots in my lung. it was really scary. a dvt in my leg. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. my doctor and i choose xarelto® xarelto®... to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner... ...that's proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt and pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. here's how xarelto works. xarelto® works differently.
warfarin interferes with at least six blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective... ...targeting just one critical factor, interacting with less of your body's natural blood-clotting function. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you've had spinal anesthesia, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures and before starting xarelto® about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. you've got to learn all you can... ...to help protect yourself from dvt and pe blood clots. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. there's more to know.
house speaker paul ryan sounding the alarm to republicans expressing concern that president trump will strike a deal with democrats if they don't step up on health care. >> i worry that if we don't do this he will just go work with democrats to try and change obama care, and that's hardly a conservative thing. if this republican congress allows the perfect to be the enemy of the good, i worry we will push the president into working with democrats. i don't want that to happen because i was a patient centered system, not government running health care. >> good to see you congresswoman, good morning. >> thank you, good morning. >> one thing both sides agree on is we're in uncharted territory right now in the white house and
on capitol hill. is it possible that you guys on the democratic side could come to an agreement with the president on health care? >> i think if the president or the republicans are willing to come to the table to improve obama care, i think anything is possible. the real problem is that if you're stance is repealed and you won't talk about anything until you repeal, that makes it incompatible. i don't know how we could sit down if that is the position that either the republicans on the hill, or the president would begin with. >> senator bob corker just put out this tweet, and he said we have come a long way in our country when the speaker of one party urges a president not to work with the other party to solve a problem. having said that, real estatically, understanding that many of you on the democratic side have acknowledged that something needs to be done to calm the fears of a lot of americans who know there are issues with obama care the way
it is now, what do you see as a possible path forward re realistically. i think there is a lot of things that could be done to improve the affordable care act and first for medicaid to expand in states that didn't already improve it. i mean, i have been here, i'm in my seventh year now, i voted 65 times for a repeal. if my republican colleagues had a replacement, i think i would have voted 65 times for a replacement and they clearly don't. >> you were in the room, right, when he met with the congressional black caucus. what is your take?
is he someone on any given issue, understanding that maybe not all of them, but on an issue you think he will listen? that you can move forward with him? maybe to the shigrin of republicans? >> in the meeting that we had, the president did listen to us, but what didn't happen was an active dialogue and engagement with exception of transportation and infrastructure. there was a little dialogue there. i think both sides lit up understanding how important transportation and infrastructure is, and he even said that you know, he is interested in working on this issue and he understands that some of the republicans on the hill might not be too happy about it, maybe that is a starting place. >> and you have these issues, too, that make it more complicated with the
investigation into russia. you said nunes last week, kusher in this week, congress must create an independent commission to follow the facts. do we know what the facts are? is it fair to say where there is smoke there is fire. it seems like that every day. let me tell you the main thing, the chaos that has been happening here is the chairman of the house intelligence committee just shows that we really need to take this outside of the congress. it needs to be bipartisan. we need people like colin powell to step up and be involved in an independent commission. i think the antics here in the house is an example of that. >> short of an independent commission, do you think the senate and the fbi can get to the bottom of it? >> i certainly hope they can. i think there is a better indicate from the senate, but i do have to recall that even the
senate care of the intelligence committee, he was called over to the white house, and he contacted members of the press on behalf of the white house. maybe she he is in a better posn than chairman nunes. >> congresswoman bass, always great to see you. >> thank you, we'll be right back. >> it's time for the "your business" entrepreneur of the week. niala got a secret family press pea for hibiscus tea. she is trying to build it into a national brand, but she says she needs help. she is getting a "your business" makeover.
befi was active.gia, i was energetic. then the chronic, widespread pain drained my energy. my doctor said moving more helps ease fibromyalgia pain. he also prescribed lyrica. fibromyalgia is thought to be the result of overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. for some, lyrica can significantly relieve fibromyalgia pain and improve function, so i feel better. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions or suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worsening depression, or unusual changes in mood or behavior. or swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects are dizziness, sleepiness,
weight gain and swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain, i can be more active. ask your doctor about lyrica. ♪ can i get some help. watch his head. ♪ i'm so happy. ♪ whatever they went through, they went through together. welcome guys. life well planned. see what a raymond james financial advisor can do for you.
here it is happened. a judge in hawaii extended the order blocking that ban indefinitely. so it prevent people. so we will continue to follow it. thank you for watching this hour, i'm chris jansing,up next andrea mitchell reports. >> thank you, up next, live from nato head quarters in brusz sel. president trump puts the conservative free call kwus on notice threaten as they try to hold the remember caucus together. . >> if we don't do this, he will just go work with democrats to try to change obama care and that's hardly a conservative
thing. >> from russia with love, as the senate intelligence leader has their first hearing on the prem lin. they are trying to channel an american president, but did is lost in translation. >> debating taxes and addressing the americans, watch my lips, no. >> and the family business, ivanka trump taking a position in the white house west wing. she will be the first child to work for the president in the white house. >> people think you will be part of the administration, ivanka -- >> i'm -- no, i'm going to be