around the senate. he's a master of the senate but not very accessible to the press. i, however, managed to catch up with him this week after days of huge headlines involving inindictments, terrorism, some very significant votes on judges. thanks for sitting down with me. >> pleasure to be with you. >> the worst terrorist attack in america in new york since 9/11. is it time to be talking about immigration reform or should we wait a while? >> the president has been talking about improving our vetting for some time. and, you know, you've got to look at a guy like this and say, how did he get here in the first place. i do think it's worth taking a look at. >> in your office, there's a picture of the great henry clay, one of the great kentucky compromisers. is there a compromise for daca, vetting? >> yeah, i think so. democrats desperately want daca. republicans are not necessarily opposed to that. the president has set it up that we have an incentive to act. he's given us six months to come up with a proposal. i think there ought to be something related to making the american legal immigration system better, achieved along with daca. it could be border security, it could be ending chain migration, it could be the diversity quotas, but something that ta tangibly improves the immigration system in our country i think ought to be attached to daca. >> this is also a week of indictments. there are two views of mr. mueller. somewhat legislation to limit his reach. other want legislation to keep him safe from being fired. do you think congress has any role in legislating about the special counsel right now? >> i don't think so. i don't hear much pressure to pass anything. there's been no indication the president or the white house are not cooperating with the special counsel. i think the view up here is let him do his job. >> finally, we've got the tax bill that dropped on the day that we're talking. it's got some controversial provisions in it. there's a $500,000 limit for new homes on mortgage interest. realtors will be coming after the bill. the state and local income tax reduction is dead, corporate income tax is permanent. is this going to make it through the senate if it makes it through the house? >> we'll have a companion bill that the finance committee will review a little bit later. comprehensive tax reform is always challenging because if you achieve your goal and the goals here are middle class tax relief plus changes in the business tax structure that make it less likely your job goes over seas, that's the core of the bill. in order to get those rates down, both for individuals and for businesses, both corporations and what we call pass throughs, you've got to get rid of some of the preferences. but at the end of the day, nobody in the middle class is going to get a tax increase and we are committed to middle class tax relief and business tax changes that keep our jobs here in america. >> your colleague, tom cotton, has floated raising revenue by getting rid of the individual mandate from obamacare. the president tweeted out this week he likes that idea. kevin brady told me on my radio show, that's a nonstarter. that's not going to happen. will you allow an amendment? >> the process we're going to use in the senate is wide open for amendments, both in the finance committee and once it gets to the floor. so anybody who's got a good idea will be able to offer it. >> are you going to get some democratic votes on this? >> you know, my guess is once we've demonstrated we have 50 votes and could pass it without them, that we might get a few democrats. >> i want to talk about senate dysfunction. he sent up a nice list of hundreds of bills he sent over to you. same time steve bannon is hitting you with a sludge hammer. i keep thinking about '10 when we ran christine o'donnell and in '12, we, i'm a republican, people know that, we ran mourdock and todd akin. if you had those four votes would obamacare be repealed right now? >> yeah, we'd of been in the majority a lot sooner. so what's this really about? this particular element you talk about specializes in losing elections. in 2010, 2012 we took a passive view towards primaries. some of these unelectable people were nominated and what they all have in common is they're not in the senate. so we intend to be aggressively involved in primaries where it's a choice between someone who can actually win, help us maintain our majority, and help us support the president's agenda and people who are guaranteed to lose in november. so, yeah, there will be some skirmish sz, but in '14 and '16 we decided the business model was flawed and we needed to get involved in primaries on behalf of candidates who could win in november and we took the majority and held it in 2016. that's the policy we'll pursue in '18. >> the steve bannon attacks, is there a personal vendetta involved here? i just don't get it. you've got neil gorsuch on the supreme court. but for no hearings, no votes, we would have lost the supreme court for a liberal majority. why does steve bannon want mitch mcconnell to be his opponent? >> i don't know. you'd have to ask him. look, this is about winning elections, and the only way you make policy is you win elections. i remind people, people lose go into a different line of work. the people who win come here and make policies. so that's what this is about. and also the whining about the senate, the senate's in the personnel business, the house is not. there were 1200 executive branch appointments subject to confirmation in the senate. i not only didn't allow the supreme court vacancy bill to be filled during the last year of barack obama, i also didn't allow a lot of other federal judgeships to be filled. when president trump got elected and we held our majority, we have the largest number of federal judicial vacancies to be filled since the early 1950s and the president is sending up spectacular nominees. barack obama when he had 60 democrats in the senate got three circuit judges in his first year. we did four the week you and i are talking, we had already done four, that's eight, and we'll do more before the end of the year in conjunction with the president and his spectacular white house counsel, don mcbegamcbegagann, we are making permanent, long lasting changes to the judiciary. >> pardon me for going deep into the weeds. i'm of the opinion if we lose the majority, we being republicans, that democrats will not confirm one judge for the next two years. >> you're right. >> as pay back. am i right? >> yeah. >> that will not be legitimate. if we lose the majority. people who are running cam my kaz zee candidates have to realize they're giving up the federal judiciary. >> these 21 federal court vacancies that were inherited are almost as important as the supreme court. are you satisfied that the white house is moving fast enough? because while there are 21 vacancies, there have only been 14 nominees, only 11 with their paperwork done, confirmed eight, get the other three done. we still have another ten nominees to come out to you. >> i am convinced they're moving fast enough. it takes a while to do the vetting and get them in the pipeline. now the pipeline is beginning to fill up and we're not going to be a bottleneck up here in the senate. as you've noticed, as soon as the circuit judge comes out of committee, i call them up. i'm in charge of the schedule. i've got to choose what to bring up. confirmation of circuit court judges is my top priority as they come out of the committee, they will be called up. >> the blue slip i've written about in "the washington post" and i've heard you say in the rose garden you do not approve of the blue slip. why do you personally oppose the blue slip. >> let's talk about circuit judges. >> it's limited to that. >> i think the blue slip for circuit court judges ought to be simply a notification of how you're going to vote. now it's been honored in the breach for 100 years. sometimes it's been treated as a veto, sometimes it isn't for your viewers here the blue slip is if somebody's nominated from your state, you get this blue slip from the judiciary committee to say whether you approve or disapprove. at the district court level i'm perfectly content with senators, regardless of party, still having considerable sway, but at the circuit court level, this administration and every other administration i can remember in both parties have felt it's a presidential prerogative. and had we decided to allow the blue slip for circuit judges to be a veto, here's the situation, hugh. 48 democrats would have been able to veto 62% of the circuit court vacancies. that ain't going to happen. coming up, more from leader mcconnell. we'll be right back. hi. so i just got off the phone with our allstate agent, and i know that we have accident forgiveness. so the incredibly minor accident that i had tonight... four weeks without the car. okay, yep. good night. with accident forgiveness, your rates won't go up just because of an accident. switching to allstate is worth it. your rates won't go up just because of an accident. i've always had that issue with the seeds getting under my denture. super poligrip free. it creates a seal of the dentures in my mouth. just a few dabs is clinically proven to seal out more food particles. try super poligrip free. ♪ ...you might be missing to stasomething... ♪ ...your eyes. that's why there's ocuvite. it helps replenish nutrients your eyes can lose as you age. nourish your eyes to help keep them healthy. ocuvite. be good to your eyes. ♪ spread a little love today ♪ spread a little love my-y way ♪ ♪ spread a little something to remember ♪ philadelphia cream cheese. made with fresh milk and real cream makes your recipes their holiday favourites. the holidays are made with philly. their holiday favourites. ♪ their holid♪y favourites. everyone deserves attention, whether you've saved a lot or just a little. at pnc investments, we believe you're more than just a number. so we provide personal financial advice for every retirement investor. welcome back. i'm hugh hewitt. mondays through friday you hear me on the salem radio network 6 to 9:00 a.m. eastern but saturday morning you find me right here on msnbc. here's part two of my exclusive interview with senator mitch mcconnell. we bring up whether or not republicans and democrats in the world's greatest deliberative body will ever be able to work together again. >> let's go back to your predecessor's leader, harry reid. he did a lot of damage to the institution especially when he packed the d.c. circuit. is there a chance after a year and after some equity and after some circuit appointments that leader mcconnell and leader schumer can sit down and put hum at this du pty dumpty back together again before it started to go to hell? >> i think probably not. circuit court and supreme court are hugely important. i think there's a good chance that this will continue to be treated as an important matter. as a lawyer and a student of history, you recall that there have been various points in our history in which supreme court nominees were just waived through. >> yeah. >> but this is a period of senatorial assertiveness and i think you could anticipate it being practiced on both sides, but the democrats, i'm sure, regret their decision to lower the threshold in 2013 to 51. that's what makes it possible for my 52 republicans to confirm all of these judges. and so they are reaping what they sowed and we are continuing to make changes that will affect future generations far into the future. >> if you keep that senate majority for eight years the federal majority will be safe and secure for 50 but you've got to keep it for eight. >> we do. >> do you think you can do that? >> right now we're concentrating on keeping it for four. >> okay. >> 2018 would mean we would have a majority through the first trump administration. the trump administration has done a terrific job of picking sharp, young -- for example, this very week you and i are talking, you know, the democrats are always talking about a war on women? >> yeah. >> three of the four circuit court judges that we're -- >> joe larson and judge barrett, now judge barrett. >> women. women. and outstanding and young and who believe -- yeah, i had justice gorsuch in my state. he said judges don't wear red, they don't wear blue, they wear black. justice scalia said you're not a very good judge if you're not uncomfortable from time to time with the outcome you reach because it's dictated by the law you're supposed to apply. these are the kinds of people that we are putting on the circuit courts. >> i want to wrap up, senator mcconnell, by talking about big tech. i've talked to the speaker and the leader about it. they got banged up by tom cotton. they did not send their ceos to speak to the senate. are you disappointed that mark zuckerberg and jack dorsey did not come to speak, how powerful, manipulated they were, that twitter was offering russian television 15% of their ad space and they would not come to answer the senator's questions? >> yeah, i think that's not good. they ought to be more interested in cooperating when you have a clear law enforcement issue. more interested in cooperating with law enforcement than they have been. i'm a little skeptical of these disclosure type proposals that are floating around, which strikes me with most american citizens trying to use the internet and to advertise. what we ought to do with regard to the russians is retaliate, seriously retaliate against the russians. the -- these tech firms could be helpful in having us -- giving us a way to do that. >> i am -- i am not in a hurry to regulate big tech because i don't think we know what we're doing, but i would like some serious minds to look at it. people like leon panetta, condoleezza rice, would you support a 9/11 sort of commission that looks at the national security implications, not the russia attack, that's mr. mueller's job, he's doing a good job, but the broader issue of encryption and whether or not they are working with our national security. >> i don't know if we need some special entity to do it or not. we have committees, we have people interested in doing this. it certainly would help if the ceos were willing to testify, but i think the big, big subject with a lot of national security implications and a lot of first amendment concerns as well, this is a tough area, trying to figure out how to balance national security versus the first amendment. >> that's what i wanted to end up on. you are known for mcconnell versus fec when i teach my con law students in california. you're mr. first amendment but the national security implications of these media companies calls into effect whether there are national security exemptions to the first amendment. do you think they ought to be cooperating more than they are? >> in any event the first amendment shouldn't apply to foreigners. that's an american protection. we need to be figuring out how to deal with these foreign actors in some way that's consistent with national security that does not violate the first amendment rights of americans. >> who figures that out? last question. i don't think the fcc is ready for it, i don't think the fec is right for it. i don't think the antitrust division is. i don't know where the regulation is right for it. i don't want congress to blunder in. what's your advice? >> we need to be careful and not do the wrong thing which is what we frequently do when we regulate speech. >> well said. thank you for your time. >> thank you. stay tuned. i'll be right back with hugh's views. i'm ginny and i quit smoking with chantix. it takes a lot of planning to be a smoker. it's like when am i gonna be able to sneak out of here and go have a cigarette? i just knew i had to quit, and chantix was the method that actually worked for me. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. chantix reduced my urge to smoke. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. thanks to chantix, i did it. ask your doctor if chantix is right for you. many insurance plans cover chantix for a low or $0 copay. 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. welcome back. time now for hugh's views. senate leader mcconnell's views shouldn't shock anyone. one would think even mcconnell's fiercest critics, even steve bannon, would want there to be a republican majority for confirming judges and supreme court judges come 2019 and 2020. but you know who else might want that gop majority to endure? big tech. that's who. if you haven't noticed, big tech, amazon, google, facebook, twitter in particular but apple, microsoft, snap chat, instagram as well, they are all under increasing scrutiny and some outright calls for regulation, like the public utilities or railroads or airplanes. gop house majority leader kevin mccarthy opened the door to just such a move on this show last month. should the house intel committee look into establishing a new agency to regulate big tech just for national security within the confines of the first amendment but to make sure that these big silicon valley companies keep america's security at the center of their agenda? >> i'm always concerned about security. i'm also concerned about the first amendment. i never want to tramp on the first amendment's ability. i first want to have all of the facts. i notice it woke up twitter, it woke up facebook, but i want to let the hearings go through. >> now house speaker paul ryan wasn't so agreeable when he and i discussed this issue also on this show. >> last week i had kevin mccarthy on this program and we talked about twitter and facebook and google. they are the big three. they're very powerful. they're very private. is it time to look whether or not either the antitrust division or a new agency has to get some control over them? >> what i find with technology and antitrust law, technology moves so fast that something that seems like a bohemuth today can be disrupted and replaced tomorrow. look at taxi cabs and uber. look at how technology turns. if you spend your time trying to stop big firms from being big, you'll end up slowing down economic growth and development. so these firms will probably be replaced in some future day by some other disruptive technology and that's the kind of economic vitality we want in our free enterprise systems. >> to underscore what i just showed you, the regulatory skepticism, neither was leader mcconnell to call for regulatory hammers to fall on big tech. >> yeah, i think that's not good. they ought to be more interested in cooperating when you have a clear law enforcement issue. more interested in cooperating with law enforcement than they have been. i'm a little skeptical of these disclosure-type proposals that are floating around, which strikes me would mostly penalize american citizens trying to use the internet and to advertise. >> now the republican leadership might be skeptical of regulations, but there are places calling closer look at this problem. anyone who has read this book, franklin ford's war without mind is trouble. deeply trouble over the size, power of big tech. it is the gop that is the natural opponent of governmental regulation. mitch mcconnell is the fiercest defender of free speech, in fact. here's the irony. big tech's biggest friends on the hill are all republicans. that's right, the liberals and lefties running twitter and facebook turn out to serve their shareholders best if they work to keep a republican majority in place in 2018 while they clean up their own act and set their own house in order before, say, a group of regulation loving lefties arrive in congress led by a return speaker pelosi and return majority chuck schumer. then they won't have the antigop watching their back. that's quite the irony, but it's true. silicon valley's best friends are all republicans. that's it for this week. i'm hugh hewitt. keep the conversation going on msnbc.com/hugh-hewitt and see you next week on saturday morning right here on msnbc. your body was made for better things than rheumatiod arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of ra, even without methotrexate. ask your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr. accused of obstructing justice to theat the fbinuclear war, and of violating the constitution by taking money from foreign governments and threatening to shut down news organizations that report the truth. if that isn't a case for impeaching and removing a dangerous president, then what has our government become? i'm tom steyer, and like you, i'm a citizen who knows it's up to us to do something. it's why i'm funding this effort to raise our voices together and demand that elected officials take a stand on impeachment. a republican congress once impeached a president for far less. yet today people in congress and his own administration know that this president is a clear and present danger who's mentally unstable and armed with nuclear weapons. and they do nothing. join us and tell your member of congress that they have a moral responsibility to stop doing what's political and start doing what's right. our country depends on it. hey there. good morning, everyone. i'm alex witt here at msnbc world headquarters. president trump is preparing to head for the far east. he spent the night in hawaii after visiting pearl harbor yesterday. the president and first lady observed a solemn laying of the wreath at the "u.s.s. arizona" memorial. a bit later today they'll fly to japan. the first of seven countries. more trouble for embattled movie mogul harvey weinstein who an actress accuses of raping her twice. new york city poce