considering he is representing trump. >> i would suggest if you watch the hour long circus on sunday night you will find a lot of maeflt. some rudy giuliani. some comments in the vein of these comments. and you will learn about comments that are suggestive how he is likely to respond. >> he doesn't know what kind of soared i had details you are going to debt when you go through the cohen files. >> there could be stuff. >> could be pimps. my thanks to my guests. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now with the incredibly patient steve kornacki. >> if it's friday, there is no resignation but plenty of indignation. tonight, new round of leaks peel back the curtain on more west wing dysfunction. >> i'm not going to validate a leak one way or the other out of an internal staff meeting.
plus, the white house deflects criticism over michael cohen's cash flow from at&t, saying the president can't be bought. >> this is actually the definition of draining the swamps. and later, one year of robert mueller and his russia investigation. >> regardless of recommendation, i was going to fire comey. this is "mtp daily," and it starts right now. good evening. i'm steve kornacki in new york, in for chuck todd. welcome to "mtp daily." we begin tonight with developments of the last 24 hours that can perhaps be summed up as trumpism on overdrive or trumpism run amuck. whether it's mock iing john mccain, noting quote, he's dying
away or the immigration when the president dressed down his secretary during a cabinet meeting probabilitying here to nearly resign. or the hook the other way posture when it comes to the president's personal lawyer, profiting off of his access to the white house or the president sticking up for the embattled epa secretary. in both cases, cohen and pruitt it may seem like drain the swamp but neither has been cut loose. they would not deny reports that a communication staffer mocked john mccain because he was, quote, dying. >> i'm not going to comment on an internal staff meeting. >> does the white house not think you need to condemn these remarks. >> again i'm not going to validate a leak one way or the
other out of an internal staff meeting. >> are you saying she didn't say this? >> i'm in the going to validate a leak out of an internal staff meeting one way or the other. >> involving the president's personal lawyer michael cohen, the white house claimed there isn't anything swampy about cohen being paid millions of dollars by corporations like at&t as it tried and failed to get the administration to greenlight a merger. >> i think it proves that the president is not going to be influenced by special interests. this is the definition of draining the swamp, something the president talked about repeatedly during the campaign. >> welcome to what has seemingly become a daily ritual in trump's washington. a never ending cycle of leaks, outrage, counter-attacks and ultimately paralysis. there is a chunk of congress that blames all of that on the president and there is another chunk that rushes to his defense. and there is the chunk of folks who seem to say just get me out of here. dozens of members of congress are now retiring.
some of them already out the door. most of them republicans. and some of them not shy about saying why. >> too many republicans expect unquestioning blind unquestioning loyalty and obedience to president trump no matter how absurd or destructive the comment or may have. on the other side, too many democrats offer resistance to president trump even if they agree with him on a given policy or position. >> i'm joined now by republican congressman charlie dent of pennsylvania. you just heard from him there. that was his farewell address on the house floor. his ley last day in congress is tomorrow. we have been told this will be his last interview as a congressman. thank you for taking a few minutes to talk. let me start with what's in the news today. the comment reportedly made by a white house staffer about john mccain. there is the reported near resignation of the dhs secretary after being dressed doesn't by trump.
there is michael cohen and touchdown. there is scoot pruitt and the ethical controversies around him. is this the kind of day that makes you say i'm glad i'm getting out of here. >> i think we just call that friday anymore. yeah, i guess i am. i mean there are a whole host of issues here. i could comment on each one if you wanted me to. the mccain issue i guess is really unsettling to me. i experienced something quite similar, steve, during the campaign in 2016 at a tea party debate during the general election. i had -- i was being criticized i hadn't endorsed donald trump. and i wasn't going to. in part about the comments he made about john mccain. and when i said that, somebody blurted to out something disparaging and i said he is a great hero a great man, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. but people say these thing. i'm at a loss. ms. nielsen. the secretary, i was on the
receiving end in the cabinet room over health care. i don't work for the president. that's apparently how he treats some of his staff from time to time. >> let me dig down on the mccain issue. you mention the comments during the campaign. it was the summer of 2015. donald trump was a candidate for president. folks were trying to figure out was it for real? he was out in iowa. he said i prefer people who weren't captured. along those lines. there was conventional wisdom that that was it, air came out of the trump balloon, no way republicans were going the stand for it. leaders and voters would turn on him now. instead, the trump phenomenon continued to take off n. light of that experience in 2015, the fact he could win the nomination, win the presidency, you hear these reports coming out of the white house right now about this comment. does this bother your party at
all when you boil it down? >> i tell you what, if i had said some of those comments at any time during my career i would be disqualified and i probably wouldn't be a congressman. had i said those things about john mccain or mexicans or muslims or charlottesville. >> why was he able to get away with it? >> that's a great question. i'm not sure i have the answer to that. i don't know that anybody has the answer. all i can say is that if a congressman had disparaged john mccain in that manner i suspect it would be difficult for them politically or made chents about mexicans being rapists i think was the term that was used. and there were other harsh terms. they would be i believe disqualifying comments for most candidates. particularly in a swing or a marginal district. i don't know how you frofr some of those types of remarks. >> i want to take this interview and focus a little bit about expectations. you are leaving now, versus the
beginning this trump presidency. let me start on election day 2016. you are running for re-election in pennsylvania. you are expected to win. you do win. you are going back to congress. on election day when you are casting your vote or showing up at your victory party was it your expectation that night that you are going back to congress and the next president is going to be a democrat, hillary clinton? >> yeah. i can't didly state yeah that's what i thought, that i was going to win. and i thought that hillary clinton was actually going to win the election. at least in pennsylvania, i thought that was the case. i thought that she would win. and so i was probably like most people pretty surprised when donald trump prevailed. at that time, that night i said i'm going to try to make the best of this, work with the president and support him when he's on the right track and check him when he's moving in the bad direction and call him out when he is going off the rails. most of us felt that we wanted them to be successful and wanted him to be successful and work with him. >> let me stay on that.
the mccain thing is a good example of this, where so much that has been happening in the last year and a half since donald trump became president it's unprecedented in a way for a president to behave this way, but it's also consistent with what we saw during the campaign. so you were hoping for the best when he got elected. i'm wondering, if you really think it would be any different than it was during the campaign? >> no, i didn't have particularly high expectations, to be perfectly honest. although i was hoping that he would make some good hires. on the national security front i thought he did make good hires early in his administration. i thought v.a. secretary shulkin and others, mcmaster, tillerson, et cetera, all good people. but the chaos that we saw during the campaign, that frenetic nature of it and all the controversy carried on in to the administration. and i guess nobody should have been advised by it based on what we saw. >> is there an area, though, where he has pleasantly surprised you?
>> yeah. look, i think the president -- i believe the president is moving on the right track on a lot of the deregulatory front. i thought the tax reform on balance was beneficial, particularly the corporate tax reform. it was necessary. i believe on the va, under secretary shulkin the department was moving the right way. i work on va funding and i work closely with him and the administration's team. there have been a number of years where i have worked with him and i have been encouraged on some policies. there are others -- some of the bigger concerns sometimes for me have been on the foreign policy front at times the president emes seems to want to walk away from various american agreements or commitments, whether nafta, tpp, south korea -- he threatened to pull out on that. disparaging comments about nato. i didn't support the iran nuclear deal but i don't think we should have two nuclear crises going on simultaneously. i worry about his walking away from commitments. these are american commitments, even if they are ones we may not
have agreed with at the time, we have to honor commitments. >> i'm curious how you would put that all together then. because you have raised concerns here that are very unique to this presidency, seem serious in terms of the direction the country going, the discourse in this country is going, chaos not white house, foreign policy concerns and not really being surprised you say based on what you saw in the campaign. when you take that whole package and you think back to election day 2016, and this country was either going the elect hillary clinton or donald trump that day, would the country be better off, as you leave congress right now, would the country be better off today if hillary clinton had been elected versus donald trump? >> i guess, steve, my answer to that would be if hillary clinton were the president today, all the anger and the energy would be on the republican side and the democrats would be in a very defensive position. i had a lot of concerns with secretary clinton. i couldn't support her. i didn't. and i suspect we would be dealing with a different set of problems and issues right now.
the american people desperately wanted change in 2016. and they just simply couldn't accept hillary clinton but they were willing to take a risk on donald trump. many of the people who voted for donald trump are friends of mine. i know them. they basically -- they have concerns and reservations and some of them would say to me i am voting for donald trump but i'm voting for you, too, to keep an eye on him. trump supporters. >> i guess when i'm hearing there is a zero sum gain. i'm trying to get a sense if it's balanced in your mind. you say there were thing about hillary clinton that deeply concerned you. if you play out the worst case scenario of your expectations for hillary clinton, does it put new the same place you are in now with donald trump? is it worse than where you think things are now with donald trump? is it better? >> well, if hillary were president she would certainly be much more conventional in many ways on the foreign policy front, i believe she would be, you know, much more attentive to the needs and concerns of our allies. and we would probably not be
making these comments that seem to be somewhat sip of athletic to the autocratic rulers, putin or duterte in the philippines and that she would be a pith more cautious and conventional on the foreign front. i think that would make a difference. on the domestic front i suspect she would have done more of the same, hyper regulation and hyper tax policy and i think the economy would have suffered if she had become president. what i learn over the last several years is that many people felt the economy wasn't moving or growing as fast as it should be simply because there was too much fear of washington. washington was too much of a meddling force. this is where president trump has an advantage over hillary. i think he got that message. and i think the economy in part moved forward because of his economic policies with the exception of trade. i disagree with the president's policy on trade which i think is
going to harm economic growth. although hillary had similar positions that was very much protectionist in many ways as donald trump. >> final question here. you talk about the idea of serving as a check on donald trump, as sort of a balance to him. when you look ahead to the possibility of democrats taking over the house this fall from republicans, is there a part of you that says from the standpoint of having a check on the president that that would be healthy for the system to have democrats have the house and trump have the presidency? >> look, i have so many friends in the house republican conference, i certainly support them and support the majority and have been supportive of it for years. at the same time, i have said to my house republican colleagues that you know we have to exercise our article one powers not just when there is a democrat president but when there is a republican president. we have a responsibility to conduct serious thoughtful oversight. that might mean we will do some things that will bother the administration, the trump administration. but that's okay. that's our job. and the truth is, the democrats are the same way.
when there is a democratic president and they were in charge, they were easier on oversight. >> i guess -- that's what i'm asking, though, if there is sort of a natural -- it is a human thing, right, when our party controls things we are going to go easier. when the other people, maybe not. from that sandpoint, if that's human nature, do you think maybe for the sake of the system, what you are expressing all these concerns about, that to have a democratic house with a trump president might be a healthy thing. >> well, i would rather not. believe me, i would rather not. but we may have one. the truth is, the new governing philosophy it seems is more about separation of political parties than separation of powers. and this is not specific to my party or to the democratic -- both parties are guilty of this right now. and it's -- we have got to get back to a better balance where congress reasserts its authority. we have lost a lot of power to the executive branch over many years. it just didn't start with donald trump. this has been going on for years.
i think we are in many respects a weaker institution than we had been. we have to reclaim those powers. the speaker, paul ryan and john boehner before him really struggled in part because they really had a difficult time enforcing any discipline, getting people to vote for things that had to get down. that weakened the speaker because of the internal fighting and i suspect a day may come where you can actually see if -- you might have to have a diplomat coalition to elect the speaker if each party becomes as divided and factualized as they have been. >> charlie dent we will let those be your final words in what i think is your final interview as a member of congress. thank you for taking a few minutes. good luck in your post political career. >> thank you steve. always great to be with you. ahead, the mueller investigation. one year later. nearly a year now since the d.o.j. launched the probe into russia ties, house how close are we to answers?
with this clever little app called audible. you can listen to the stories you love while doing the things you love, outside. everyone's doing it she's binging... they're binging... and... so is he. so put on your headphones, turn on audible and binge better. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.
sure. mom,what's up son?alk? i can't be your it guy anymore. what? you guys have xfinity. you can do this. what's a good wifi password, mom? you still have to visit us. i will. no. make that the password: "you_stillóhave_toóvisit_us." that's a good one. [ chuckles ] download the xfinity my account app and set a password you can easily remember. one more way comcast is working to fit into your life, not the other way around.
[muswe were built on it. (vo) we know the value of trust. back when the country went west for gold, we were the ones who carried it back east. by steam. by horse. by iron horse. over the years, we built on that trust. we always found the way. until... we lost it. but that isn't where the story ends... it's where it starts again. with a complete recommitment to you. fixing what went wrong. making things right. and ending product sales goals for branch bankers. so we can focus on your satisfaction. we're holding ourselves accountable to find and fix issues proactively. because earning back your trust is our greatest priority.
it's a new day at wells fargo. but it's a lot like our first day. wells fargo. established 1852. re-established 2018. i think it is pretty clear that the department of justice opposed the merger. and so certainly the president has not been influenced by any or his administration influenced by any outside special interests. >> welcome back. let's get the our panel. emily jane fox, van it fair senior reporter. bill crystal, editor at large of the weekly standard. and kyle wright. host of the united states of anxiety. thanks for being here. emily, let's start on this question here. michael cohen, the at&t payments. you see sarah huckabee sanders being asked about that today. i'm trying to follow the logic there where she says actually this sort of exxon rates them on this idea that they are draining
the swamp. what did you make of her reply and what they are trying to communicate there? >> it's hard to make sense of it. i guess what she was trying to say is the fact that we are in a fight with the justice department -- or the justice department is in a fight with at&t is proof that we did not succumb to these special interests. i don't know that anyone in briefing room bought it. i don't know that anyone in the american public bought it either. there is still so much to find out about just how much the president knew about what michael cohen was doing f the president knew anything at all. i do not think that that statement helped clear anything up. >> i guess there is a question, too, policecally bill of definition. this has come up many times since he became president. drain the swamp. the lobbyists in the administration, examples like today. and people say this isn't what trump voters voted for. i guess the definitional question i would ask is to trump voters does drain the swamp mean something different than maybe it does to us sitting around
this table? >> i think it means having donald trump rather than a clinton or a bush, honestly, or other representatives of the establishment. i think they are wrong. he gets away with murder but i suppose you could look at a lot of other democrat goings in t--. the degree to which norms have collapsed -- the vice president of the united states can routinely say i think this mueller investigation has to get over. when i was in the white house a few years ago, it is automatic that you say i can't comment on a pending investigation. it's inappropriate for the president, the vice president, a chief of staff, it's inappropriate for a deputy assistant communications director you are taught that. so many norms like that collapsed you had an interesting
discussion. the bill passes in the judiciary committee, 14-7. mcconnell says i'm not bringing it to the floor. this is the legislature. he is not dictator. in the old days, in the senate if a bill passed like that he might say i want to make sure there are amendments, i don't personally like it. whatever. the idea that he snaps his fingers and says no legislation in this area also kind the system breaking down. one thing i would sayt is the system has broken in many ways. trump didn't break it. the system was broken. that's why we have trump. trump is making it worse. >> the word tribalism is used so much. if the definition of draining the swamp to half the country essentially is our guy is in, theirs on the is, where is there room for the system to function as it has in the past? >> i would tweak it a little bit. i feel like draining the swamp is an emotional question.
the fact is that it is a swamp. we are getting this object lesson right now in exactly how influence peddeling works in washington. it is a thing. it does -- all of us on all sides of the political spectrum feel like, man, it feels like if you have got money you have more voice in washington than i have got. everybody feels that. but no one really understands how that works. so the question is, who articulates that with the most emotion. donald trump did an intelent job with his drain the swamp idea saying i am going to be on your side. and demagoguing as bill rightly put it, the other side. you know, i think the reality is that there is a swamp. you know? and the reality is that most people don't understand it. as long as you can mike the right kind of emotional argument that says i am the guy that's here for you it will work he is succeeding at that and the facts will never change or alter -- >> you said it on election coverage, four incumbent congressmen lost. one incumbent lost a primary.
>> right. >> it was a bad night for incumbents. >> anybody with that washington -- >> yeah. i wonder what that says going forward. in a way i would like someone to defeat trump in the 2020 primary. i wonder given these kinds of stories whether the right version of the outsider who actually does come in as a reformer trying to drain the swamp not as a guy who played the game as trump has for 40 years and is willing to play it more recklessly and with less regard to legality and propriety than his predecessors. on both sides not just republican. >> we just had charlie dent on. that style of republican. talking about trade, international -- we used to say traditional republican ideals. are we seeing the ends of that type of republican with a guy like that leaving? >> i like him. i'm sorry he is leaving. no, i don't think so. i think there are reluctant trump supporters who still believe in those things.
if bills came to the floor, there would be majorities on the republican side i think for free trade. >> the other thing that struck me in that interview was he seemed to make the case it sounded to me for oversight from a democratic congress over president trump. >> you pushed him on that. >> he didn't want to complete the thought but he sort of said it's natural for one side to go easy on its own. >> there is room for that kind of thinking but whether that is something people are willing to articulate is the question going forward. >> i think voters -- i know suburban republican voters who like their congresswoman barbara come stock, normally vote for republican on policy matters and say we need to have a democratic house to check trump. >> this is one case in the opposition party tends to have -- >> good news as mother's day approach approaches. why it's getting easier for moms to break into politics.
across web and tablet? do you want $4.95 commissions for stocks, $0.50 options contracts? $1.50 futures contracts? what about a dedicated service team of trading specialists? did you say yes? good, then it's time for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. looks like we have a couple seconds left. let's do some card twirling twirling cards e*trade. the original place to invest online. or a c-anything-o. but i've got an idea sir. get domo. it'll connect us to everything that's going on in the company. get it for jean who's always cold. for the sales team, it and the warehouse crew. give us the data we need. in one place, anywhere we need it. help us do our jobs better. with domo we can run this place together. well that's that's your job i guess. ♪ ♪
with expedia you could book a flight, hotel, car and activity all in one place. ♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun transitions™ light under control™ ( ♪ ) it's the details that make the difference.
only botox® cosmetic is fda approved to temporarily make frown lines, crow's feet and forehead lines look better. it's a quick 10 minute treatment given by a doctor to reduce those lines. ask your doctor about botox® cosmetic by name. the effects of botox® cosmetic, may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyelid and eyebrow drooping and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. the details make a difference. the man makes them matter. see real results at botoxcosmetic.com/men.
welcome back. it's almost mother's day weekend. just in case you forgot. not that anybody out there would be. politics has always been a tough environment for moms. there is a long way to go. but thing are starting to get a little bit better thanks to mothers fighting to their rights. like luba gretchen shirley a long island democrat running for congress. the federal election commission ruled in her favor recently allowing her to use campaign
funds for child care. she had worked from home providing full time care for her two toddlers. she argued she needed sitters only during her bid for congress and therefore it was a campaign expense. it is the fec agreed with that. tammy duckworth recently gave birth to a daughter. she is the first sitting senator to do so while in office. soon after she introduced legislation allowing new parents to bring their children less than 1-year-old onto the senate floor and that bill passed unanimously. there you go. maybe mother does know best. we'll be right back. i'm dianne feinstein and i approve this message.
i support the affordable care act, and voted against all trump's attempts to repeal it. but we need to do more. i believe in universal health care. in a public health option to compete with private insurance companies. and expanding medicare to everyone over 55. and i believe medicare must be empowered
to negotiate the price of drugs. california values senator dianne feinstein he made a recommendation, but regardless of recommendation, i was doing to fire comey, knowing there was no good time to do it. in fact, when i decided to just do it i said to myself, i said, you know, this russia thing with
trump and russia is a made up story, it's an excuse by the democrats for having lost than election that they should have won. >> welcome back. today is the one year anniversary of that interview. donald trump and lester holt. in the wake of that sit-down one year ago next week, deputy attorney general rod rosenstein appointed bob mueller as special counsel. and that is when the russia investigation we know today got underway. now of course we have no way of knowing where the mueller probe is in this investigation or what they are uncovering. but the white house has made it clear that they believe one year is enough. the vice president mike pence telling our andrea mitchell yesterday that the investigation should end so the president can focus on other matters. >> i would very respectfully encourage the special counsel and his team to bring their work to completion because days like this are what the american people sent to us washington to do. >> and white house chief of staff john kelly telling npr he
thinks there is nothing there in the mueller probe and that that is weighing on the president. >> something that has gone on this long without any real meat on the bone suggests to me that there is nothing there relative to our president. there may not be a cloud, but certainly the president is somewhat embarrassed frankly. >> joining me now is barbara mcquaid a former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan and an msnbc legal analyst. thank you for joining us. let me ask you, just sort of watching this from afar as all of us are but with a little bit more expertise than most, what is your sense of the timing of this investigation on when we might actually hear something from mueller? >> i think in light of a case with this level of complexity, the fact that we are a year in without finality does not surprise me whatsoever. in fact i have been impressed with the speed with which robert mueller has worked. he has indicted 19 individuals, three corporate entities. has had five guilty pleas.
i think he is working at a lightning pace compared to some of the cases that i have seen handled that didn't have this kind of international reach. and so i think it will go on for some time more. but robert mueller does have a reputation as someone who works with urgency. i think he understands there is a cloud that hangs over the administration. and one way or the other it would be useful to complete his investigation. but he won't do it by compromising or cutting any corners. it will take as long as it takes. he will push hard. i would imagine perhaps by the end of this year we will see some closure to it. even then, you know, owe so often you think i have five more witnesses to interview and then they tell you about five more people they tell you about that you have to interview. i don't think we are close to the ending point yet. >> let me ask you about the considerations that go on inside an investigation like this. on the question of timing here, saw maybe later this year. the big political event this year, november, midterm
election. any report from mutual hear the comes out in advance of that midterm election i think at that point with potentially define the midterm election. the ken starr report hit in september 1998, defined that midterm election. is that a factor at all when they think about when to release these things? >> d.o.j. lawyers are all instructed they should endeavor to avoid interfering in an election. but there is no specific guidance as to how you do that because every decision has to be made on a case by case basis. i would imagine he would refrain from making a big announcement on the eve of the election but i'm sure he will continue to do his work quietly behind the scenes throughout that. i don't think he will try to do things to try to beat the election. but he will think through the decisions he's making, and any public announcements he is going to make in an effort to avoid interfering with an election. >> we have paid a lot of
attention to the president himself attacking this investigation. the vice president saying hey wrap this thing up. obviously that has been the public theme from trump's team. 20 years ago folks around bill clinton were attacking ken starr, too. again, on the inside of an investigation like this does any of that penetrate, seep through? does it affect timing? does it affect the approach in anyway? is it all for public consumption? >> i think it's mostly for public consumption. i think people feel pressure to move quickly. that's not necessarily aed about thing. i think they recognize this is a case of great public significance and that there is value in moving the case as quickly as possible. but i don't think they are going to succumb to the pressure and say we have to stop because president trump has asked us to or the public demanded it. but i think it does cause them to work with a certain level of urgency. >> do you think the contours of this investigation -- one thing that's been striking to me is a new name will randomly enter the
mix based on an dime or a plea deal. suddenly we are talking about george papadopoulos, who nobody had heard of before. and it makes me wonder how well we understand the contours of this investigation. what is your sense of that? >> i think there is probably a lot more that we don't know about, that there may be other george papadopouloss out there who we don't know whose names will be revealed in unsealed documents down the road. if you look at some of the statements of offense that have been filed until this case you will see reference to campaign official one and campaign official two. we don't know exactly who those people are. i think in the coming months some of those things will unfold. one wrinkle that could add challenges for robert mueller and his team is the arraign men we saw against this russian entity known as concord management which in addition to being arraigned has demanded its speedy trial which means robert mueller could find his team or some members of it distracted by having to go forward and try
that case. the speedy trial act permits -- requires a trial within 70 days of the date of arraignment which was two days ago. we could see that play out and maybe some names could be revealed in that context. >> i wanted to ask you about the president's legal strategy, not so much pr. when you look at rudy giuliani right now, do you see a coherent legal strategy on display here? or do you see a lawyer who is sort of having to jump around based on what the president decides to say publicly on any given day? >> i do not see a coherent legal strategy. it appears that rudy giuliani was hired to be more of a public relations person on all of this and to try to control the narrative and do some damage control. i don't think he succeeded in controlling the damage. in fact i think he created more of it. i think they want to control the narrative as opposed to reacting to michael avenatti and others
bombarding them with criticism. they wanted to control that evident and come out on the defensive. i think they have not succeeded on that evident. up next, new data on the closest midterm races we are watching. we are going over to the big board right after the break. so lionel, what does being able to trade 24/5 mean to you? well, it means i can trade after the market closes. it's true. so all... evening long. ooh, so close. ♪
our new slogan for 2020, do you know what it is? keep america great! because we are doing so well that in another two years when we start the heavy campaign, make america great again wouldn't work out too well, right? it's going to be keep america great! because that's exactly where we are headed. >> president trump last night in a rally in indiana. he's already talking about 2020. he's confident there, as you can hear. and it really brings us to a pretty big disconnect in politics in washington in republican party politics as the 2018 mid terms approach, because the president seems fairly confident republicans -- republican leaders especially, maybe not so much. let's explain and look into the disconnect and what it's all about. first of all from the standpoint
of republican leaders, mcconnell, and ryan, who is getting out of town at the end of the year, what is it they say that maybe the president isn't looking at? they see this, the history of presidents with low approval ratings and what is happening in midterm election as catastrophe for obama and the democrats in '10. a catastrophe for rush and the republicans in '06. a catastrophe for clinton and the democrats in '94. his number wasn't even that bad. you see that hit zone. that's something republican leaders see. what else do they see? the special elections. where a democratic won a seat, trump had won by 20 where just a couple weeks ago, cut by 16 points. republican leaders see that pattern, they start to get nervous. they see this, which party do you want control congress next year. democrats leading on that that makes republicans nervous as
well. what is it trump sees that he is not nervous? he sees the headlines from the final weeks in the 2016 campaign. his poll numbers are collapsing. conservatives are against him. chaos. don't worry he can't win. after the "access hollywood" tape, get out of the race. you are going to sink us all. we need pence to come in. these are the headlines from the end of the 2016 race. maybe he has confidence based on that experience where republican leaders and folks who follow politics i think are looking at the other factors. and that is the big question here for this midterm. is it going to be all about those metrics or is there something that changed in the era of trump, the polarization, the tribalism, whatever you want to call it? it is a question we will be following in the months ahead, certainly. we'll be right back after this. or plan for tomorrow?
at kpmg, we believe success requires both. with our broad range of services and industry expertise, kpmg can help you anticipate tomorrow and deliver today. kpmg. at a comfort inn with a glow taround them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com." who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com. or a c-anything-o. but i've got an idea sir. get domo. it'll connect us to everything that's going on in the company. get it for jean who's always cold. for the sales team, it and the warehouse crew. give us the data we need. in one place, anywhere we need it. help us do our jobs better. with domo we can run this place together.
all right. time now for "the lid." the panel is back. emily jane fox. bill crystal, kyle wright. let's talk about the mid terms. i'm curious as somebody on the left side of the discussion here how you are looking towards this. are you looking at all of these metrics we went through the special elections, the approval rating the history and saying this is a wave building here? or are you apprehensive because of what happened in 201:16. >> you gave me chills with the headline display, i remember at the nation when we wrote that, he can't win. and how terrifying it is to think back to it. the thing is is that there is a lot of fundamentals here about the wave that's going to happen, all the numbers that you have shown. that feels pretty clear. but i think the thing that democrats are looking at or should be looking at is also on the positive side of this is the changing -- the ways that there are a number of candidates and a number of campaigns starting to talk about how they can fundamentally change the
electorate. i'm thinking about stacey abrams running in georgia. a conversation we should never be having, a democrat running in georgia. if she wins the primary, she if we can remobilize the obama coalition, bring out black women in particular, the growing numbers of voters of color, the growing numbers of young voters you can have a different electorate than we have in the past. >> i heard that in '14 and, in '16. what makes it different in '18. >> time. there is growing number of democrats who believe that and are running campaigns with that in mind. that hasn't been the case in the past in the democratic party. i think that's one of the changes. the fundamentals are here. listen, who knows with politics, right? and a lot can happen in six months in the world, too. >> particularly in this six months until this midterm election. it feels like every day is a year in the landscape within one given news week.
think about all that happened in this one particular news week. it's not only politics in general a lot can happen in six months. in the trump administration six months is a lifetime. >> that's what i'm wondering, so much is happening yet the numbers are steadying. he was at 46% in the first week of his presidency. now at 43% actually somewhat high. can you see an even that would change those numbers. >> no. i think for that reason democrats are likely to take the house. if i was a democratic strategist i would be worried in this way it's going to be a nationalized election. on checking or impeaching trump. the senate math is not only skewed in favor of republicans as you know it's skewed in a tlumpy direction. already five democrats in states that trump waerd by 15 states. really trumpy states, missouri,
north dakota -- if we are doing to have a nationalized election, didn't holly going to be happened helped by that in missouri. you could have a weird result. how does trump or the country interpret that? that would be an interesting outcome. >> looking ahead to the -- trying to put the polarization in context. it is a question of are the rules different now? is there something about trump, trump era, the tribalism the polarization that scrambles thing in the way that we can't set rules for? >> one, trump's core supporters the 30 something% that never changes, that -- they have struck this deal a long time ago. they decided a long time ago that regardless of how foul he gets, regardless of whether he is assaulting women, he is being a racist, whether he is talking
about a man who is fighting brain cancer -- whatever he is prepared to do, we are prepared to hold our noses because we agree with him, we agree with what he has to say on the borders and on trade. so that is the big thing to keep in mind. it's not that the rules got scrambled but there are people who truly agree with the agenda this president laid out. and his behavior is way outside the bounds for a lot of us, but those folks have decided it's okay. >> speaking of the behavior, too, the other thing that i fine interesting is the approval rating is up in the last week. this is relative. we are not in 70% territory but by trump standards the trump rating is up. and the subject that's been dominating the news cycles is sex, the stormy daniels case. the democrats say it is more than that. payments and those sorts of things. i am having flashbacks it's not the sex, it's the perjury, the
obstruction of justice. folks across the country said no that's pretense you are trying to take out your opponent on sex. is there any of that happening on that? >> they have already made their mind up that that's -- the people that supported and voted for president trump in 2016 made their minds up knowing what they knew about president trump, knowing about the sex, what kind of man he was, the values that he held. it is a not going to matter in 2018, the way it didn't matter in 2016. >> could it boost him. >> a wave depends on the out party being energized and the inparty being demoralized. 2006 for the republicans. 2010 with moderate democrats thinking obama went too far. i'm not sure trump supporters are demoralized. and his strategy -- he is not stupid is to gin up, he is not going to convince a whole lot of opposite voters or win back suburban college educated women. can he gin up missouri west
virginia? i'm not sure that he can't. and then the rudy giuliani stuff looks smart. >> the democrats want impeachment on the table from democrats. they think that will get folks mobilized. >> we are out of time. thank you for being here. ahead, look who is talking, and listening. managing blood sugar
oh hi sweetie, i just want to show you something. xfinity mobile: find my phone. [ phone rings ] look at you. this tech stuff is easy. [ whirring sound ] you want a cookie? it's a drone! i know. find your phone easily with the xfinity voice remote. one more way comcast is working to fit into your life, not the other way around. in case you missed it your smart device probably didn't.
millions of people now have home virtual assistants like google home and amazon's alexa. but your voice might not be the only one it's listening to. check this out. according to the "new york times," researchers in china and the made to have begun demonstrating they can send h hidden commands that are undetectable to the human ear. it can be used to unlock doors, wire money, buy stuff on line. that listening device you have in your house, it seems that thieves and scammers and skoun drels can use it for all sorts of i will list it purposes and you apparently don't even have to hear it. a a group of college students showed how it can be done. >> we interrupt this message to give you a message which is entire coincidental.
>> welcome back. what was that, you ask? i didn't hear anything. i heard nothing at all. and that's going to do it tonight. we will be back with more "mtp daily." chuck will -- katy tur. it's monday. but not me. the beat with arleigh melber begins right now. >> good evening. the white house sticking by an aide who mocked john mccain is unimportant because he may -- i'm paraphrasing because he may die soon. also, trump blasting an aide for having no skills. corporate america is reeling from the michael cohen/urchu donald trump scandal. tonight the senate asking for secret documents from the drug giant that had been plowing