while 30% say it has given them a less favorable one. 61% said it had no impact. and finally, this is the most troubling number 46% said they feel that president trump fired comey to slow down the russia investigation. and 38% buy the original explanation from the white house, that it was done over legitimate concerns over how comey handled the hillary clinton e-mail issue. and there's a report that a frustrated president trump is considering firing many of his top white house aides. it adds up to a week, at best, the administration has a communications problem. or at worst, it is facing accusations of obstruction of justice. >> i was going to fire comey. >> donald trump contradicted his white house aides and his vice president, adding to questions as to why the president chose to fire fbi director james comey when he did. >> no one from the white house. that was a d.o.j. decision. >> he took the recommendation but the president needs to back off and let the investigation go forward. we need to call comey and get to the bottom of all of this. i think it's time for an fbi agent to lead the fbi. when you talk about a new person to lead the fbi, how about an fbi agent who is above reproach. >> why does it have to be an fbi agent at this point? >> it doesn't -- >> why not a u.s. attorney? a prosecutor, somebody like that? >> it could be. it could be a lot of people. how about the idea of an fbi agent leading the fbi, promoting within the ranks. there's so many good agents, men and women out there, capable of leading the agency. this is up to the president. he has an duty and obligation to pick somebody beyond reproach outside of the political lane. i think he will do that. i hope he will do that. i'm ready to move on and pick a new fbi agent. i'm ready to get to the bottom of what russia did. no evidence that the president colluded with the russians at all. nobody on the campaign that i know of has colluded with the russians. we don't know all of the evidence yet. we need to continue forward and protect these investigations. >> while we're staying on the fbi director, eight people interviewed yesterday at the justice department. one of them is a colleague of yours, senator john cornyn. two were women, could be the first woman to head the fbi. former fbi agent and a former member of congress. let me ask you this -- in this political environment, do you think it's the right time to have the first-ever fbi director who had a political elected political background, which is what it would be, if mike rogers or john cornyn were named? >> no. i think it's now time to pick somebody that comes from within the ranks or such a reputation that has no political background at all, that can go into the job on day one. who does the fbi director work for? to me, it's like appointing a judge. the president actually appoints a judge. but the judge is loyal to the law. the president appoints the fbi director, but the fbi director has to be loyal to the law. john cornyn is a wonderful man under normal circumstances. would be superb choice to be fbi director. we have a chance to reset as a nation. the president has a chance to clean up the mess that he mostly created. he really think did his staff a disservice by changing the explanation. i would encourage the president to pick somebody we can all rally around, including those who work in the fbi. >> let me ask you something about the russian interference. later in the show, i have an interview with rex tillerson. i conducted it yesterday. and he would not give an explanation as to why russian interference wasn't brought up during his meeting with foreign minister lavrov. we go back and forth and not once was it thought of as a top priority. can we move on in a relationship with russia if we don't confront them on this? >> absolutely not. i don't know if they privately talked about it. but secretary tillerson did a masterful job in the u.n. security council talking about the threat of north korea. i understand wanting to engage the russians in syria because they're part of the solution, if we ever find one. but here's what i believe. i'm 1,000% certain that the russians interfered in our election. it was the russian intelligence service that hacked into podesta's e-mail, the dnc, to create chaos. they did try to undercut clinton. i don't think they changed the outcome. i don't believe we can go forward as a nation until we punish russia. have bipartisan sanctions against russia for interfering in our election. and my goal is to put it on the president's desk. i hope he would embrace it. russia didn't change the outcome of the election but they tried. and i want to punish the russians. and i hope the president will see their interference as a threat to our democracy. >> i want to talk about the investigation. word just out of the field, nbc news/"wall street journal" poll. i have to put the up the number. i'll read it to you. i know you don't have a screen. who should investigate russian interference? only 15% think it should be you folks in congress. 78% -- that means it's a bipartisan group of people, would like to see an independent commission or a special prosecutor. do you understand why the public doesn't trust, now, the politicians to do this? >> yeah. but here's what i think about the investigation -- right now, it is a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. you don't need a special prosecutor. i trust deputy attorney general rothenstein to do this. if he can't do it, we'll have a special prosecutor. an independent commission takes it outside of congress. the intel committee, the judiciary committee, we're doing a good job. i want to keep it inside the congress. i'd like a select committee where we all work together. but right now, i see no need for a special prosecutor. it's not a criminal investigation. i see no need for an independent commission yet. >> you called for a special counsel a number of times during the obama years, for the clinton e-mails, for the department of justice, targeting leaks, white house leaks of investigation, the idea that joe sestak may have gotten a job offer in exchange. my point is, why did all those meet the test for a special counsel but this one doesn't? >> this is a counterintelligence investigation. we're not investigating a crime yet. if it becomes a criminal investigation of the trump campaign colluding with the russians during the election and mr. rothenstein doesn't believe he can do the job, we'll have a special counsel. there's a process in place. i'm not worried about polling, not worrying about anything other than trying to get the right answer. the russians did it, they need to be punished. trump is not a target of the investigation yet. leave the investigation alone. congress is doing a good job in my view. if it gets to the point we can't, we will take it outside of congress. >> you are looking at the president's finances. the president has made a big deal that he sent you a certified letter from his accountant, which all that means is you signed for it. and that's fine. but why does it -- in this case, shouldn't you want to see the tax returns from one of these llcs that run a golf course, for instance. there's a report out there in north carolina that the trump national golf course may have been financed by russian money. that's not going to be in the president's tax return. that's going to be in the llc of trump national in charlotte has that. are you going to be able to get your hands on those records? >> i have yet to find any evidence of improper business dealings between the trump organization and russia or anything else. if you can show me there's reason -- there's a suspicion of that, we need to get financial documents. >> have you seen those records? >> i can't ask for documents without a reason. the president should turn over the tax returns. i don't have a reason to subpoena them. if i get that reason, i will do it. he should turn over the tax returns. he should do that now. >> all tax returns, not just the personal but the llcs. it's not going to be in his tax return if there's anything there. >> if you can show me we need to do that, i will do it. i can't say on television, based on your question, that's a good idea. but i'm open-minded to all things russia. the bottom line is, i think russia tried to affect our election, undermine our democracy. i want them to pay a price. i have yet to find collusion between the trump campaign and russia. there's a "washington post" story that comey went to burr to get more agents and more money. that's not true. there's a lot of things that are said that are true or half-truths. let the process work. i promised the people of sking and the people of the united states, i do care about this. i have nobody to punish. >> i hope you don't regret coming on now. >> happy mother's day. it was fun. >> that's the most important message to say. there you go. let me go to the other side of the aisle. senate democratic leader chuck schumer of new york. senator, welcome to "meet the press." i hope you're more enthusiastic to be on than senator graham. >> yeah, i didn't see senator graham. i want to join him in wishing all of the moms happy mother's day. in particularly to my mom, who will turn 89 in three weeks. >> well done. >> let me start with the issue of a special prosecutor. why do you believe it needs to be done. senator ben sass indicated that if you do that, it is sending a message you don't trust the intel committee to do their work. and it's a vote of no confidence there. shouldn't you let them do their job to see if they can do it without a special prosecutor? >> well, there are two separate lines of activity here. one is the oversight function of the intelligence committee. they're doing their job. mark warner has done a very good job. i've had some differences with senator burr. but in the last week, people tell me, he was upset with comey's firing and he's been good. i hope it continues. but they can't prosecute. a special prosecutor appointed by the justice department has the ability to actually prosecute people for violations of law. and they go on in tandem. one shouldn't step on the other. they're talking to each other right now. the fbi was with the intelligence committee to make sure no one is granted immunity. but it's two separate issues. and we need a special prosecutor, chuck. we need somebody who is independent of the justice department to get to the bottom of this. and i just say one more thing. the silence of my republican colleagues on this issue is sort of deafening. this is not an issue of party. this is an issue of country. foreign interference in the elections is a very, very serious, serious thing. and we should get to the bottom of it. where is the howard baker of 2017? we need one. >> one of your democratic colleagues, senator sheldon whitehouse, said why he is skeptical of a special counsel. take a listen. >> if you look at the special counsel rule, you have to bring in somebody new, bring him in from outside the department. and they have the choice to make their own decision they want to start from fresh, perhaps. >> his concern is that everything starts over. you're hitting a reset button and it sets the investigation back. >> look, i have a -- i love sheldon whitehouse. i have a great deal of respect for him. he's one of the great lawyers around. there's many instances where a special prosecutor comes in. they're in charge, they're the shield, so there's no outside interference or direction. but the same investigators who worked on this will continue to work on this. and that's how i imagine it will work. let's remember, the special prosecutor has four abilities that an internal person doesn't. he or she makes the decision. day-to-day, on who to subpoena. who to examine, what questions to asked. who outside interference. second, can only be fired for cause. third, has the ability, if there's interference, someone's trying to thwart the investigation from up above, they can make sure that doesn't happen. and investigate that and, fourth, they have to report to congress. there's a lot of advantages over a special prosecutor. and if you look at the department of justice guidelines, there's never a more important time, a more appropriate time for a special prosecutor than in this situation. >> senator warner, who is the vice chair of the intel committee, conducting the investigation. he said, unless the deputy attorney general rosenstein appoints a special prosecutor, he thinks it will very difficult to get support for an fbi director. do you plan on linking those two issues? not trying to tell the democratic senators, withhold support until there's a special prosecutor named? >> well, each democratic senator is going to make up his or her own mind. but i think the two are very much related. if you have an independent special prosecutor, you really have the ability to get to the bottom of this. so, it matters in terms of who the fbi director is. you need both of them, really, to have a lot of courage, to resist any pushback, not to do the investigation. you need both to be very experienced. that's important, as well. and i think both should be nonpartisan. not from either political party. those would be my criteria. but i think they're linked because they're involved in one of the most serious investigations we've seen in a very long time. >> there were eight candidates interviewed yesterday. two have an electoral background. a sitting senator in john cornyn, a sitting member of congress. some have a bipartisan background, like townsend, that served in the clinton and the bush administration. anybody jump out as a favorite of yours? someone you could see supporting? >> i've made it a practice, chuck, of not commenting on nominees publicly. let's see who they nominate. but as i said, certainly somebody not of a partisan background. certainly somebody of great experience. and certainly somebody of courage. >> what did you make of the merrick garland suggestion? >> i'm not going to comment on any of them. i like him as a justice, though. he's very good on that d.c. circuit. i don't know if he would want to leave. >> you think that was too cute at that point? >> no comment. >> no comment. all right. >> i'm smiling. >> senator chuck schumer, i will leave it there. senate democratic leader. thanks for coming on "meet the press" and sharing your views. when we come back, signs of a big white house shakeup. yet more reporting this morning that president trump may be prepared to do house cleaning in one part of the west wing. as we go to break, here's a moment from president trump's commencement address yesterday at liberty university in lynchburg, virginia. >> being an outsider is fine. embrace the label because it's the outsiders who change the world and who make a real and lasting difference. welcome back, panelists another, eugene washington, our newly appointed white house contemporary, hallie jackson. bbc world news anchor, katty kay and from the washington "free beacon" and late breaking news, from founder of asios, he joins me. you will throw some more wood here on the fire. a whole shake-up you say is coming soon. walk us through it. i think we will put up the four positions that could be on the firing line including the chief of staff. >> you talk to the same people we do. you have a president so frustrated he's getting nothing done, it has the coverage feels ill-served by his staff. he's been on the phone talking about getting rid of everyone from steve bannon to rinse priebus to his white house lawyer, don mcgann. he's even frustrated with his cabinet officials talked about getting upstaged with top officials including his friend, wilbur ross. but the thing is he's just frustrated. the thing for the white house, he's the product and pitchman. he's the producer, firing the stage hands denies a fundamental -- >> we know this happens a lot. is this a timeline here? something he's moving quickly or like comey, could happen in a day or month? >> we never know. we had this three weeks ago, we know he wants steve bannon out and jared kushner wantsteve bannon out. they're worried about the optics of doing it. whenheents and get frustrated he really gets frustrated. you never know if he's blowing off steam, it is coming. >> it's clear to me the circle that sluhrunk around the president. >> i think you saw that with the comey decision, steve bannon was not in the loop with this. there's pushback with his allies. the point is this circle is shrinking. the president is frustrated. when he gets frustrated he vents and spitballs, how real is it as a question? since sean spicer's first press briefing i get a text every 10 days that says spicer is gone. this feels different and even those in spicer's corner say this is a different situation. i would not understate talking about timing the importance of this foreign trip. the president has an extraordinarily busy week, four leaders this week and then heads to the west coast. >> is this trumpy, my god, everybody is focused on comey. let me do a white house shake-up and maybe everybody with focus there, act two. figuring out timing with president trump is impossible. look at the comey firing, right? awful, terrible timing, you ask for this report that's the cover story, you get it. the next day he's out or later that day he's out. the timing was awful. it created the appearance of all sorts of conflicts and then he schedules the lester holt interview and decides to blurt out what sounded like a confession to a lot of people to obstruction of justice. i think your point, jim, you have no idea when this is going to happen or might happen. it does feel different. it feels like something has to give in this white house. >> the other part the more somebody gets talked about getting fired the less the president wants to do it. >> the more we bring it up. matthew, you wrote a great column on friday that may summarize this whole thing best. you hear it all the time. president trump hasn't been tested or faced a real crisis. the events of the last few weeks made me want to turn that formulation around. trump doesn't face crisis so much as manufacture them. in a way he is the crisis and his presidency in danger of not being defined not by any legislative or diplomatic achievement but his handling of diplomatic obstacles he creates for himself. >> you have the most unpredictable president probably theodore roosevelt president before the 24 hour news psych ntil ach lot of people worried about president trump's policies when he took office. he's a businessman, he will manage like a businessman. now we come to the reverse, many republicans find with president trump's policies mainly conventional conservative policies with a few trumpian twists. you hear a lot of complaints from republicans about the management. >> i wrote this week perhaps it's the president's thin skin getting in the way of his presidency. there may be nothing behind the firing of james comey or russia or hillary clinton's e-mail. it may be the psychology of the president that cannot bear the idea this man was not loyal to him, went on television and hit the sweet spot of undermining somehow the president's electoral victory. the problem is without a straight story conspiracy theories will fill the vacuum. we're not getting the straight story and not getting the facts from the white house and leaving them wide open to the criticism this was somehow nefarious. >> on top of this, he thinks so small, for all the rage against the media he remains this past week obsessed with coverage, spends so much time watching sean spicer's performance and probably watching our performance. when you think small it's hard to do in life. >> that's something ckatty was implying. the worst thing comey said in that testimony, nauseous. it came close to comey agreeing with the clinton narrative comey cost her the election. despite it not being james comey's intention to make that. that was the day this kicked another gear. he may have wanted to fire comey but wednesday was it. >> he may never accept this investigation of russian meddling exists separate from any question of hillary clinton having lost the election and whether she ran a bad campaign or not. >> the question of whether that reaction gets in the way of his presidency ishat it leads to a lack of competence in the white house. he can't overcome his personal feelings to run the white house. >> a showboat and grandstander. there's only one star of the show we're in. it's president trump. >> i will leave it there. >> a little breaking news this morning, appreciate you getting up. thank you. up next, president trump says the russia story is fake news and a witch hunt. does is secretary of state, rex tillerson agree? my interview after the break. and senator warren's commencement address at the university of massachusetts. >> study up because knowing something about an issue makes a difference. ♪ ouch! skin-flex™, anna! sit! new band-aid® brand skin-flex™ bandages. our best bandage yet! it moves like a second skin. ♪ dries almost instantly. better? yeah. go! good thing because stopping never crosses your mind. band-aid® brand. stick with it™ to the thought that he was trying to stymie the russia campaign. i sat down with secretary of state rex tillerson and asked him whether he agrees with the president the russia story is fake news and witch-hunt? >> the president has made it clear he feels it's important we re-engage with russia, the relationship with russia, as he has described and i have described as well, i think at an all time low point since the end of the cold war, with a very low level of trust. i think the world and it's in the interests of the american people and russia and the rest of the world we do something to see if we cannot improve the relationship between the two greatest nuclear powers in the world. the president, i think, has committed to make an effort in that regard and asked me to make an effort as well. >> i understand that. you look at what's happening in the western european nations, france and germany and italy and accusations of russian interested interference in their election process. what does id say to them that the president fired the man at the agency that was looking into the very problem they're dealing with, russian interference and the democracy? >> chuck, from what i hear from leaders of the other nations, europe and more broadly the subject of russia comes up in all of our conversations is all the other nations want the u.s. and russia to work towards improving our relationship as well for all the reason is just mentioned. i think it is largely viewed it is not healthy for the world and not healthy for us for the american national security to remain healthy at this low level. whether we can improve it remains to be seen. it will take time and hard work. the president's committed, rightly so, and i'm committed with him as well to see if we cannot do something to put us on a better footing with our relationship with russia. >> can you get on a better footing if you don't address this issue? your counterpart, foreign minister, mr. lavrov said you guys didn't even talk about this issue of russian interference in our election because, as he put it, president trump himself says it's fake news so it's not an issue. why haven't you brought it up with him? >> chuck, i think we have such a broad range of important issues that have to be addressed in the u.s. russia relationship. obviously the interference in the election is one of those. been well documented, pretty well understood the nature of that interference here and elsewhere. these are not new tactics on the part of the russian government directed not only at us but at others. again, i think we have to look at this relationship in its broadest contours and there are many many important areas which require our attention if we are to bring it back to a relationship we believe is necessary for the security of the u. >> mr. secretary, this is fundamental, they interfered with our democracy. i just don't understand how this is not a top issue for you to deal with, with them, in order to essentially start with a clean slate. can can't start with a clean slate until either they own up to what they did or we punish them in a way they won't do this again. >> chuck, i think it's important to understand we're not trying to start with a clean slate. terms like having a reset are overused. you cannot reset, you cannot erase the past. you cannot start with a clean slate and we're not trying to start with a clean slate. we're starting with the slate we have and all the problems on that slate. we don't dismiss any of them, we don't give anyone a free pass on any one of them. they're part of the entire nature of the discussions we're having with the russians. there are a large number of issues we have to get around to addressing in order to put this relationship back together if that is indeed possible. >> during your confirmation hearings you made clear you hasn't obviously hasn't been briefed on the intelligence reports, 17 different agencies that came to the conclusions that the russians did make an effort to interfere in this election. obviously, there's an investigation going along to see if there's any collusion in this interference. since you became secretary of state in february, i have you seen this intelligence now? is it clear in your mind that it is a fact the russians interfered in our elections? >> i have seen the intelligence reports, chuck, yes, i don't think there's any question that the russians were playing around in our electoral processes. again, as those intelligence reports indicated it's inconclusive as to what if any effect it had. >> i understand about the impact, the fact they got into it, what should the repercussions be now in your mind? >> they're just part of that broader landscape of conversations, chuck. the real impact it serves yet again to undermine the trust between the united states and russia. as i have said and the president has said, you know, we're at a very very low level of trust between our two countries right now. so what we're exploring is how do we begin the process of restoring that trust. ultimately, it will touch on all these issues. >> i want to give you a chance to respond to an op-ed senator john mccain wrote, where he invoked your name, sir. in a recent address to state department employees, secretary of state rex tillerson said conditioning our foreign policy too heavily on values creates obstacles to advance our national interests. with those words, secretary tillerson sent a message to oppressored people everywhere, don't look to the united states for hope. our values make us sympathetic to our plight and when it's convenient we might officially express that sympathy. pretty tough words from senator mccain. what do you say in response? >> first, i would say if anyone has earned their right to express their views, senator mccain has. i have great respect to the senator. i think the point of the message i was saying to state department employees is an important one to understand. america's values of freedom, dignity, freedom of expression, those are our values, enduring values and part of everything we do. they serve as the guidepost and serve as the boundaries as we develop our foreign policy approaches and diplomatic efforts. i make a distinction between values and policy. policy has to be taylilored to e individual situation and country and its circumstances and broader issue in terms of advancing our national security interests, national economic interests. so policies have to be adaptable. they have to change and adjust to conditions. our values can never change. our values can never be put in a position of having to be compromised. the values guide our policy. but if we put our values in front of ourlicies and say, this is our poly, we have no room to adapt to changing circumstances to achieve our ultimate objective. if we are successful to achieving our ultimate diplomatic and national security objectives, we will create the condition for advancement and freedom of countries all over the world. >> secretary tillerson, i know you're busy and have this big trip head of you. >> thanks, chuck, i want to say happy mother's day to all the mothers of the world, my own mother and wife and two daughter laws, mothers of my grandchildren. any decision to move the u.s. embassy to jerusalem would not be made for some time. you can see a lot more of this interview on our website on meetthepress.com. coming up, could we see makings of a democratic wave next year? will farrell's commencement address at usc. >> this is not my first commencement speech. the institutions to which i have spoken at previously include briman's school of nursing, hollywood d.j. academy and trump university. tand, our adulte children are here. so, we save by using tide. which means we use less. three generations of clothes cleaned in one wash. those are moms. anybody seen my pants? nothing cleans better. put those on dad! it's got to be tide. welcome back. "data download" time. millennials have been putting their stamp on things. just about all new mothers are millennials, 82% of all births were to mothers born between 1981 and 1997. that's generation y or the millennials. in the 10 years since there's a 5% of increase in number of new moms unmarried. now means more than a third of all new mothers are unmarried. 32% of millennial mothers had a bachelors degree or more and 5% increase since 2005. more than 60% of new moms are in the labor force. that's a 6 point jump in 10 years. 2015 millennial moms are more racially and ethnically diverse. what does all this mean? as millennials start to dominate motherhood. it could change our politics. they were concerned about security moms focused on post 9/11 world. those were republicans. and those now may be focused on other issues as top priorities. perhaps childcare, family leave and equal pay. for now those are areas of strength for the democrats. bottom line, demographics of moms are changing radically before our eyes, we showed you that quick snapshot and along the way may change our politics. back in a moment. the end game and choppy halls at republican town halls that might, might turn into a wave for democrats next year. >> we need a bipartisan select committee to investigate this. when are you going to open your eyes? when are you going to decide to be an american and not a politics? politics? coming what is that? it's you! it's me? alright emma, i know it's not your favorite but it's time for your medicine, okay? you ready? one, two, three. [ both ] ♪ emma, emma bo-bemma ♪ banana-fana-fo-femma ♪ fee-fi-fo-femma ♪ em-ma very good sweety, how do you feel? good. yeah? you did a really good job, okay? [ female announcer ] to nurses everywhere, thank you, from johnson & johnson. [ female announcer ] to nurses everywhere, she pretty much lives in her favorite princess dress. but once a week i let her play sheriff so i can wash it. i use tide to get out those week old stains and downy to get it fresh and soft. you are free to go. tide and downy together. when this bell rings... ...it starts a chain reaction... ...that's heard throughout the connected business world. at&t network security helps protect business, from the largest financial markets to the smallest transactions, by sensing cyber-attacks in near real time and automatically deploying countermeasures. keeping the world of business connected and protected. that's the power of and. healthcare rants. now, special prosecutor ones. take a look, guys. >> we have oversight committees in the house and in the senate. >> are you about ready to call for an independent council and if not, what would it take? >> right now i don't think we need an independent council. there's been zero shred of evidence, zero shred of evidence that the president, there's been any collusion with russia. >> we need a bipartisan select committee to investigate this. whenre you going to open your eyes? when are you going to decide to be an american and not a politics? >> the atmospherics right now, matthew, right now, to be a republican member of congress, going into a town hall. two weeks ago you were getting your head chopped off over healthcare, now, it's on this. the timing of all of this, this is when incumbents decide whether to run again or challenges decide whether to run or not. it's probably a good time to be a democrat and bad time to be a republican. >> not very encouraging. i would say the town halls have been attracting the most partisan and motivated democrats. some numbers in your pollings suggest the comey firing may not have the political impact a lot of people think. one clip you didn't have i think summed up the weird politics this week when stephen colbert mentioned the comey firing and the crowd went into applause. he said, no, no, it's bad. many people have conflicting views of james comey including this president. it may not have the political value of the healthcare fight. >> we put up the president's job rate apology,in our poll even. disapproval at 54 now and 54 in the last poll. as charlie cook might say he trades in a narrow trading range on his job approval. that tells you the core hasn't left. >> one number we have seen shift what democrats are pointing to when they think there is a prospect perhaps wave coming up the strongly disapprove number. that numr has increased significantly just in the last couple of weeks. that would suggest -- we don't have numbers yet for enthusiasm how likely people are to vote. that's the proxy number. if you strongly disapprove. 51%, strongly approve at 25% that subjects those people may turn out and vote in the mid-terms. >> even democratic operatives i've been talking about in the last 48 hours or so say nobody will go to the polls and vote based on comey. here's what goes the thinking. number one, what you spoke to, chuck, mobilize and get more enthusiastic, not voters but people who could run, recruitment and candidates to run. the other part when you tally up incidents in democratic views like the comey firing and add that to whatever else might happen the next year pointing it as congress as rubber stamp on the president's actions that could affect them in 2018, not a specific incident but building occupy over time. >> i think it's a better time to be a democratic political organizer out of the grassroots than republican organizer at the grassroots. the question is how do you quantify that enthusiasm? do you find the right candidates? let's look again in three or four, six months and see where things stand. right now this is potential there? yeah. >> the other argument democrats are making mid-terms is the first time they have had a chance to do something about trump since the inauguration. even though you're seeing some enthusiasm decline in protests and numbers a bit smaller when you get to an actual election people feel they can take action that may drive people to the polls. >> trump's core is solid. the danger for the gop is it might not transfer to the republican party. donald trump won the presidency differentiating himselfom the republican party and similar to his predecessor. barack obama always maintained that gut connection with his base, his constituency. it didn't transfer to the democratic party, devastating over eight years. >> let's get the charlie sikes op-ed into the discussion and talks about discussion there ant conservative electionism, anti-trumpism. the elreal heart is the delight in the frustration and anger of his opponents if liberals like something. each controversy reinforces the divisions and mistrust and mr. trump counts on that. the conservatives have lost what it means to be a conservative. >> i think many people come to conservatism for different reasons and a lot driven by the opposition to the left and why a lot of the conservative movement went to president trump and with his flaws they felt he was battering ram against the left and charlie psych sykes. >> even like you heard lindsey graham on the russia question for example, even those most dedicated to sort of upholding what had been their prior principles and least connected with donald trump, are not ready to jump ship yet. lindsey graham is not calling for a special prosecutor yet. there's distance yet to cover, i think, before you see any sort of mass defections. >> how that plays out we look ahead to 2018, particularly on the republican side with one gop operative saying you might see people redistance themselves from donald trump the way you saw in 2016 if it continues the way it is. >> you have several congressman running less popular than the president. how do they run on something like healthcare when people don't want to necessarily distance themselves from donald trump? >> a lot of unfinished business, healthcare, tax reform. >> i have unfinished business. i have to stop there. that's all we have for today. happy mother's day to all those mothers out there. mine, my wife, a great mother and katty. there you go. >> thank you. all four of my kids are home. >> all of washington is united behind one wall, john wall. good luck and see you tomorrow and next sunday. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." you can see more end game i got a mortgage offer from the bank today. whaaaat?! you never just get one offer. go to lendingtree.com and shop multiple loan offers for free. free? yeah, could save thousands. you should probably buy me dinner. no. go to lendingtree.com for a new home loan or refinance. receive up to five free offers and se the loan that's right for you. our average customer could lower their monthly bills by over three hundred dollars. rates could rise again. go to lendingtree.com right now.