has been available through public comments. i know that chairman nunes has confirmed he was on white house grounds tuesday, and frankly any questions regarding who he met with or why he was here should be referred to him. i've seen some of the comments he's made to your outlet in particular about who he met with, and i would refer you to his comments that he's made. i'm not going to get into who he met with or why he met with them. i think that's something that he has made very clear and i'll let him answer it. he is the one who has discussed what he is reviewing, and so i will leave it up to him and not try to get in the middle of that. >> i'm asking a slightly different question. at least, i'm trying to ask a slightly different question, which is, does the white house know what happened beyond public accounts, and are you satisfied that you don't have an inappropriate leak in the executive branch? >> no, we're not concerned about that. again, everything i know about what he has done is through public reports that he's made on the record to different folks when he said he has multiple sources, he had met with different folks to gather things as part of his review of the situation. and so all i know, and what i'm willing to communicate, is what has been made available through on-the-record comments he has made. >> don't the number of comments need to be cleared? >> i don't think they need to be cleared. >> wouldn't the white house want to know -- >> he's doing a review and it's not necessarily something we're going to get in the way of. it's something to let him review and have krconversations and lo at things that he thinks are relevant. >> you just said i don't know that members of congress have to get cleared. there are some questions on that. who in the white house signed him in? >> i'll be glad to check on that. i'm not sure that's how that works, but i will follow up on that point. >> the second question is, and it's related to this. i understand you're not going to speak about some of the swirl surrounding this issue with chairman nunes. does the white house believe he can still lead an impartial investigation, or would the white house support some calls for an independent committee to investigate this? >> first of all, i would question what "this" is. as i've mentioned countless times from this podium, there are two issues at hand. number one, there is any action with respect to russia itself, and every single person that's been briefed by director comey and others are twofold. one is the leaks of clals fssif and other information that's come out, and two is whether or not there has been people that have been unmasked and whether or not they're surveillanced. i don't know why we didn't stand behind the original request, and general comey said he's wondering what the fbi is looking into. we have a whole lot of people looking into this situation. >> will the whi house pursue a leaked investigation and whoever is giving chairman nunes information in the executive branch? >> we're letting this review proceed and we can address this after he decides to be clear about that. >> why is this leak okay and others are not? >> there is a difference between a leak and a review of a situation that's been determined. there is a difference in a leak, leaking out to reporters to take classified information and share it with people who aren't cleared. chairman nunes is cleared as chairman of the intelligence committee. someone who is cleared to share information with someone else who is cleared is not a leak. zeke? >> you read a statement on the protests in russia. does that reflect the white house's views? >> it reflects the views of the united states government. >> you mentioned that there are lessons learned off what went down the last several days around health care. can you go into specifics on what some of those lessons are in terms of -- the president said he learned about loyalty. does he believe some members of this party are no longer loyalty to him? >> i'm not going to detail -- obviously this is an internal thing that we discussed, but i will say we looked at things like everything from who we met with and when we met with them to whether or not -- how everything was rolled out and what organizations were met with, what commitments were met and when. there is a lot that goes into this. you look at whether or not that's applicable to another situation, whether that's unique, but obviously, yeah, you do look a some of the individuals you met with both in terms of timing, in terms of commitment, in terms of substance and evaluate just the process itself. but then also the individuals and whether or not that is someone that you -- there's several folks. it depend on the aspects of it. there's an level of affairs team and other teams. we accept not just the bad with the good. in some organizations if you do things not as well, it's incumbent upon you to say, what did we do well so we sustain some aspects of something. and even when you don't do as well, there's parts of things that you did well and you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so there is an ongoing piece to this. major? >> chairman nunes, i have a question about jared. yes, members of the congress may not need to be cleared, but to get access to a skiff, i believe that requires some clearing by the intelligence committee. it creates an impression that chairman nunes came over here, and with some agreement with this white house, was able to carry out this meeting, and then make the announcement he did, and it was perceived he was trying to be helpful to this president. so it appears that there was some acceptance of this pross of chairman nunes making it not just an investigative action but a public one. >> we asked him to undertake our review, so it's partly at our request they're looking into this. number two, based on the public comments that he made to this organization, he has said to me on the record that he did not meet with white house staff. again, i think you're trying to make something that he is himself, from what i've read, not actually been the case. >> he has access to a skiff and that should be carried out. >> i will be glad to look at that and find out whether that's an accurate statement or not. >> let me ask you about jared. there is an understanding trying to be worked out, as we understand it, between jared and the intelligence committee. is that testimony? is that something the committee has requested? has he volunteered? does he believe he has something to explain to that committee, and more broadly, the american public about what he did with the transition and who he met with? or some meetings he took that are raising questions about russia and folks that he met with outside of diplomatic channels but have other aspects to their russian business deals that may cost some -- >> throughout the campaign, jared served as the primary point of contact before we had officials in place. given this role, he volunteered to speak with chairman rr's committee but has received no confirmation nain regard to a meeting or anything. >> is this going to be a private meeting? >> based on the questions that surround this, he volunteered to go in and sit down and say, hey, i'm glad to talk about the role that i play and the individuals i met with. but remember, given the role he played both during the campaign and in the transition, he met with countless individuals. that was part of his job. that was part of his role. and he executed it completely as he was supposed to. >> so he doesn't believe he owes the american public an explanation? >> for what, doing his job? you're acting as if there was something nefarious doing something he was tasked to do. >> he volunteers to go talk to the intelligence committee about an investigation. it was meddling by a foreign power. >> and i'm telling you that he volunteered -- he said, hey, we made some contacts. island i would be glad to explain them. let me know if you'd like to talk. >> just to be clear, to follow up on what everyone has been asking about chairman nunes, does the white house have knowledge of the information that chairman nunes received when he came to the white house the first time? and if that's the case or if that's not the case, is your position that the white house is not going to look into where he got the information from or who gave him the information until his investigation was complete? >> i think -- i'm not aware of where he got it from. i know in his public statements he's talked about having multiple sources. so i don't know how he derived the conclusion that he did. i think that at this point, the goal would be to wait until the review that he's undertaking is completed. kaitlyn? >> why would nunes need to brief the president on documents he viewed on white house grounds? >> because that's a big assumption you're making that that's the only thing. as i said a second ago, he had multiple sources and multiple topics. we don't know what he briefed them on in its totality. so to jump to that conclusion is frankly irresponsible. >> when will the white house resume visitors? >> we're looking into that now. >> last week you were advising the press corps that it didn't make sense for nunes to come to the white house and brief the president on something that he had obtained from the white house, from the administration. so my question to you is, i know what you just said, but can you say factually, you know, absolutely flatly, that it is not possible that chairman nunes came to brief because of something he obtained from the white house administration? >> i can't say 100% that i know anything that he briefed them on. what i can tell you through his public comments is that he has said he had multiple sources that he came to a conclusion on. there is a degree at which any of those sources weighed on the outcome that he came to a decision on. i don't know, and frankly i don't know if he even talked to the president. >> so it's possible? >> anything is posble. >> here's my question on taxes. the president has said in the past that he thought maybe tax reform would flow over into 2018 is, calendar year 2018. and we know from the president's admiration of the 1986 tax reform that that took more than two years. can you answer questions about tax reform? does the president think it will take that long, to go into 2018 and beyond? and who is going to write the tax legislation? who will devise the plan the president wants to put his name on? >> i know the first one has a target date, and i think it depends. as you point out, these are big things. there are a lot of groups who will want some input and it's been 30 years. i think some of this will depend on the consensus you can come to on a lot of big issues. but we have a goal, and it will depend on issues on the corporate side and the individual side how that process evolves. i know the secretary would like to have it done. he'll play a huge role in this. gerald comey will play a role in it. secretary ross on the commerce side. there is a lot of individuals who have assembled a world class cabinet who have a lot of interest in growing the american economy to provide jobs and also provide tax relief for middle class americans. we're not there yet. >> it will be the president's plan? >> obviously we're driving the train on this. we're going to work with congress on this, but i think the president, as you've heard through multiple times, the president has been very clear this is a huge priority for him, something he feels very passionately about, so we'll have more on that later. john? >> the docents -- the intelligence committee chairman coming to the white house to review executive branch documents, why couldn't the white house? >> i will stick to what the chairman has said publicly, and my understanding from his public comments are that there are certain systems that he doesn't have access to. that was his explanation, and i'm going to -- i think you should follow up with him on that. >> did the white house ever search for the same documents the chairman searched for? >> i don't know what he found, so it would be hard to make an assessment of what he was briefed on and what we know. that's a really hard question to answer at this point. >> is it possible these documents were merely surveillance reports? >> i'm not going to get into hypothesis, john. i don't know what he found. to say what's possible or not, i don't know. >> let me finish, if i could. is it possible these were surveillance reports from security clearances that were collected after people filled them out? >> i don't know. i honestly don't know what he's got on his systems and what the intel community has on theirs that he wouldn't have access to. i don't know what he would have had access to already. so amen. >> on tax cu,t looks like you ys got a little political coverage over the weekend to do this without paying for all of it, that is, adding to the deficit. what is the right number from the white house's perspective to add to the deficit in order to do tax cuts? are you high are you willing to go? >> it's a really early question to be asking at this point. as we construct this both on the corporate side and then on the individual side, i think part of it is going to be an equation that isn't just driven by that, but more what's going to attract jobs, what's going to grow the economy? we're potentially growing around 2.6 and the president would really like to see that growth up in the high threes, fours and fives. there is a question about what part of tax reform, especially on the corporate side, will help us spur the economy and grow jobs. and i think that's an ongoing discussion. i think that's more of the driver of this, and i think we'll have a score and know more. >> are you comfortable adding to the deficit? >> you're asking really early in the process to make that kind of analysis before we have a policy set forth or have any kind of notion of what a score would look like. >> there's been a steady regulation and syria changing the rules of engagement. has he personally signed off on all the changes in america posturing the field since january 20th? is that something left up to the commanders in the field? >> it depends on what you're talking about. >> marines that left in october. did he have to sign off on that? >> i think it depends on -- he speaks with general mattis, his national security team very regularly. i'm not going to get into some of the details of what comes up in those settings. but i will say that as i've noted in the past, i think philosophically the president has made it very clear that he wants to give the commanders on the ground much more flexibility to execute their mission, especially when it comes to defeating isis. that's a very big change in philosophy, but it depends on the number of ground troops in particular. so this is an ongoing discussion that he has with secretary mattis, chairman dempford and others. >> is the president waiting or is it as conclusions come in that you're adapting day to day? >> i think it's a discussion he's having every day with chairman dumford and the review as it's ongoing. there are certain events part and parcel of the review in terms of where we're going. gabby? >> president trump has sent out two tweets now criticizing members of the freedom caucus for defending planned parent hood to be defunded by thecsa. is that something he would like to have tacked on to next month's funding bill? >> i think he's made it clear his position on planned parenthood, and obviously this was an opportunity to defund it. but i don't want to get ahead of our legislative strategy. we'll look at other opportunities, but this was definitely one that was a way to make that happen. steve? >> on that legislators thought, there is a school of thought that last week proved the president is lacking in political capital. so i have two questions. one is what's in it for democrats to work with the president now? and two, if fully pursued and to get things through the house, democrats and republicans work together. wouldn't that tend to undermine the job security of speaker ryan if the house freedom caucus is frozen out? >> two things. number one, as i mentioned to jonathan in the beginning, it's a two-way street. whether it's judge gorsuch which they're throwing down decades of senate tradition saying, we're just going to filibuster this guy. i don't think there is anyone in america that can honestly look at his qualifications and suggest he's not qualified as a jurist on the supreme court. there is nothing anyone has seen or laid a glove on in these four days that suggests he's not qualified to serve. and again, with obamacare, repealing and replacing , several democrats came out from the get-go and said, we have no interest in doing that. i think there is a place both parties can look back and say. whether it's tax reform, infrastructure, that i think he is going to be able to listen to voices on the other side to figure out if people want to work with him to get these big things done, to enhance the lives of the american people, then he's going to work with them. he hadded a great meeting with the cdc where he talked about infrastructure, he talked about loans and small business lending, education. there are things that he is willing to engage individuals with or groups or caucuses to get to 218 and further advance his agenda. so it's not about undermining anybody, it's about moving the agenda forward and getting things done. >> it's speaker ryan trying go get the bill through, not the president. what's in it for speaker ryan? >> getting things done. there are things in this country that need to be done. he came here to get things done. and i think, as was pointed out, there was a level of disappointment he expressed on friday. he wants to get things done. if people want to work together -- what this event on friday did was essentially draw more people into the process to say, okay, let's figure out if we can actually come together with some consensus ideas to get to 218, whether or not they come from one side of the aisle or the other to pass this bill and make a better system. he understands, and frankly i think other democrats do, that there is an opportunity here with health care being such a big issue, with immigration being a disaster, and i think he's willing to do that. >> you talked about the wide latitude the secretary has with obser trying to dismantle obamacare? will he try to dismantle obamacare while you're working on a health care reform? and obamacare would have a lot of taxes. >> secretary price is here today. there is a lot of meetings already taking place internally with the team. there are a lot of options on the table specially when it comes to what we called phase 1 and phase 2, trying to get some of that stuff out the door. we're talking did lessons learned, i think a lot of it is wait to get to phase 1 and phase 2. whether we wait for the revival of legislation, remember, just so we're clear, and i mentioned this earlier. obamacare had a ton of fits and starts during its process. i don't think that's necessarily a lot to to look for in terms o jamming it down. it's not over, there are people coming to the table, but he's going to listen to all kinds of ideas to see what it takes to get to 218. we'll take it from there. >> the tax question, the health care bill would have repealed the obamacare taxes? >> i think that's part and parcel of the question, how we look at both the taxes and the phase 1 stuff, but we're not ready to answer that now. >> as far as john decker offering to meet with chairman burr and the senate intelligence mmittee, is there any particular reason why the white house or be opposed to jared kushner testifying under oath before the committee? >> jared. >> in the white house' view, a dangerous. ordinarily we seal the white house in. he was a conduit, until we had a state department functioning place for people to go. remember we had a delay in some of these things. that was his role skpchlt he wants to smak sure about the role he played and the people he talked to. >> is obamacare repeal dead? >> i don't think it's dead. >> it would have to be dead if you're having democrats work with you. why would they work with you? you're still trying to repeal it. >> part of it is a recognition that it is failing. it's dying on its own. it will be dead soon -- >> i wouldn't say it's dying. >> then a lot of democrats need to be -- >> repairs need to be made, they say, but -- >> i think there's a difference. i think that we recognize that premiums continue to go sky high, deductibles are going sky high, choices are going down. by leader pelosi's own metric, this is dying. she's the one who crafted the metric, she said that there was a three-pronged system determining its success. it is an abysmal failure. if they want to come back to the table and recognize how we can do it in a more responsible way to achieve the goals that obamacare set out to do but do so in a way that's going to do the opposite of what obamacare actually did, which was to increase choice and drive down cost, we're willing to have that discussion. again, remember -- >> the thing i want to say is we have to see how we can get to 216, 218 in a given day. we need to sit down with democrats who want to sit down and have a discussion about how to do that. i think there are a number of them that want to do that. i think they understand where the democratic leadership is. they tend to stake out a very far left position. that's not where their leaders are. based on the calls that have come in over the last 50, 60 hours, i think there might be some room to have a conversation with people who want to engage in a constructive conversation how to move forward. let's see how that evolves. i don't know that we're ready to jump into this today, but i think as the calls come forward, the president's view is if you all want to get together and come to a resolution, we're willing to listen, but right now we have an agenda we're going to pursue. >> n i think the further along we go where premiums continue to go up, more and more people will be drawn into ts discussion because there is going to be a continued cry from people in terms of the impact it's having on their pocketbook and on their ability to see people that -- a doctor of their choice or a plan that's just not very good. >> one quick follow-up on nunes. do you project any kind of perception plan whatsoever to have the chair here a day earlier to come out publicly and say, by the way, there is more to this. >> you can't ask someone to do a review of the situation and then sort of create inferences that because they're reviewing a situation that there's something, you know, that's not right about that. he is reviewing a situation. i think he's been fairly open with the press as far as what he was doing, who he spoke to and why. from our standpoint, that's what we had asked to do as a review. april? >> several topics. >> shocker. >> don't be. you heard the question that i lobbed at the attorney general about the hate crime that happened in new york, the white supremacists who went to new york and targeted a black man. hate crimes are on the rise. what is this white house saying about this obvious apparent hate crime? >> you yelled at the attorney general a specific case, if i'm not correct. >> and you've talked about issues of crimes -- >> i just want to be very clear i'm not going to reference any particular case before the doj right now. i will say that the president has recognized that we need to bring the country together. he wants to unite this country, ept he wants to bring people together. he had a comment about race, if i'm correct in your question, and i think that was one of the topics that he talked about with the cbc. some of the issues wh respect to crime and education and some of the solutions they suggested that can be done during their meeting. i think those are the kind of things that we can continue that conversation. >> sean, unfortunately, there has been a rise in hate crimes when it comes to different groups to include everyone. this man in his jailhouse gave a statement saying he wished the man were younger, that he was a thug that he killed. this is racism at its utmost. >> two issues. number one, i think hate crimes, anti-semitic crimes of any nature should be called out in the most reprehensible way. there is no room for that in our country and i think the president noted that in the joint address, that there was one issue that despite policy should unite us. that is call out hate, that is calling out divisiveness on one's skin, one's race, one's gender. with regard to certain situations, he made it clear at the opening of his joint address. that's what he led with, is a call to denounce hate no matter where we come from politically. he's also talked about it the night he took the stage on that wednesday morning around 2:40 a.m. about how one of the things he needed to do was unite americans. we unequivocally, no question about it, need to call out hate, anti-semitism where it exists. and in yourase in particular where i don't ow all the details and i don't want to reference any speck caific caset i think we saw this the other day of the anti-semitic threats that were going out in the jewish faith. we saw these threats come out to the jewish faith and there was an immediate action to condemn folks on the right. it turns out, in fact, that it wasn't someone on the right. and the president from the get-go said, i bet you it's not someone -- and he was right. >> i was saying it was the white supremacist. >> i think in those cases there is no question, black or white, we need to call out all instances. that being said, while we're on the topic, i think there has been a rush to judgment in a lot of other cases when it comes to some of the particular anti-semitic discussion, where people have jumped to the conclusion about denouncing people on the right. in that particular case, we saw that the president was right and this rush to judgment by a lot of folks on the left was wrong, and none of them have been held to account on that. that's something that equally needs to be called out. when people are charging something of someone that is not true, it has been nothing to go back to those individuals on the left who came and asked for everybody on the right. i think we need to call out those individuals for rushing to judgment. >> my second topic and i'm done. someone who was in the room. you might be talking bg this dcd meeting lastweek the issue of cbus came up and that's a very sensitive subject among blacks and the white house. the issue of hbcu came up, and it was said who will be heading hbcu and the president did not have a response. will this be the case? >> i assume you're referring to the executive order, and we don't have anything to announce at this time. >> evdoes the president still believe he can work with the freedom caucus on future pieces of legislation? >> i think it's going to depend on what legislation. >> so not necessarily? >> again, it's not a question of we're going to work with anybody who wants to work with us on achieving the goals that the president set out. we're not taking anyone and saying, we're not going to work with you again. as he mentioned, he learned a lot in this process about loyalty. it's not just a bloc, it's certain individuals. i think the president learned a lot through this process, but i'm not naming names. one of the things that's interesting is when you look back -- and i know there's bayne lot -- been a lot to make of this, the president learned whe to walk away. it's not just making a deal, it's knowing when to walk away from deals or when a bad deal is a bad situation. i think the president understood while you can get a deal at the time that sometimes a bad deal is worse than getting a deal. and i think he smartly recognized that what was on the table was not going to be in keeping with the division that he had, and so he decided that this was not the time and that a deal was not at hand. >> let me ask you about this tweet over the weekend. does he regret tweeting to his followers that they should tune in to judge jeanine to have them tune in to what she said? >> he's a fan of the show. that's all. >> did he apologize to speaker ryan? >> i don't know. he spoke to him saturday and sunday at length. he's a fan of the show. >> does he owe speaker ryan an apology? >> for what? for supporting the show on fox? no. dave. >> the president is using jared ku kushner for this new position. jared kushner has never had a government job. does the president look at that as a positive thing? >> i think he does. one of the things that jared is looking at as some of the procurement, the technology aspects, and if you've ever really dealt with the government and recognized how outdated and unmodernized some of this is, it is not serving the american people, it is not serving some of the different constituents that america has. as we look at different things and how we perform technology is an important way -- i think when you look at the va in particular and recognize how it handles certain things, there are certain things it does really well. it buys prescription drugs really well. but there's certain things it may not do in terms of how it tracks, how it lends money, et cetera, that we can look at and figure out, is there a better way? government is not business, right? we recognize there are certain things business would not do in terms of tmd. but there are certain products we can put in place to help us build a better product and a better service in some of these key areas. i think when you look at some of the business acumen who jared and others are bringing into this process, i think it's a great asset to this country. there are so many individuals that jared has talked to that have been so blessed in our nation that want to give back if some way, shape or form, and are using this opportunity to help our country and serve our country in ways that they believe they can use their expertise to do. >> on health care, this review that you've talked about, what went right, what went wrong, i know you don't want to name names, but would it be fair to say at this point that the president has written off some people? >> i think i answered that question. it's not a question of written them off, it's a question of understanding there is sort of an understanding of how you deal with certain people and how they dealt with you, but it's not a question of writing themoff. we'll get to 218 down the line, but i think we recognize that as we go down this path of a big bold agenda that the president has that we're going to need every vote we can and hopefully grow the vote in some places to well beyond that. but we're not writing off anybody. but we do recognize there is some lessons learned from this process, and the president made it very clear on friday. thank you guys very much. i'll see you tomorrow. enjoy the day. >> will we see you before midterm? >> sean spicer finishing up his white house press briefing. we should note that he opened with a pretty strong denuoun denunciation standing up for the protesters there and denouncing the arrest. the white house is not going to say definitively where devin nunes got his information. that includes saying definitively that he did not get it from the white on us or the administration, saying, quote, anything is possible. number two, jared kushner is being called before the senate intelligence committee. sean spicer says kushner volunteered for an interview. and three, they are absolutely serious about working with democrats going forward. this is after health care, the gop's health care bill failed so dramatically in congress, in the house last week. we've got a team of reporters and analysts ready and waiting with us to break it all krtinelker i in the white hoe presbriefing room. kristin, notable that sean spicer cannot say definitively that devin nunes did not get his information from somebody within the white house or the administration. >> that's right, he got asked that question a number of times, katy, and he couldn't say definitively who he met with or who cleared him into the white house that day before he made that announcement. so clearly there is a lot of digging that has to be done, but the other takeaway, katy, is he was pressed on whether there could be some type of independent investigation given the mounting questions. he dodged that question as well, wasn't prepared to say definitively that the white house would support such an investigation. then i think the third takeaway is what you talked about. he made it very clear that this white house was serious about working with democrats. didn't get into specifics about how he would turn the page, though, with democrats given all the personal snulinsulted we'vsd from leaders, what kind of c carrot they would bring to the table. he just said, listen, we want to get this to the white house as well. but that is going to be challenging. he was also pressed on his relationship right now with the freedom caucus, that conservative branch of the republican party that effectively blocked him on obamacare. you saw that i pressed him on whether or not he had any confidence left that he can work with him in the future, and i thought it was interesting. you heard sean spicer essentially say, we'll have to see. so not a definite or resounding yes on that point at all. i think the takeaway, katy, is this white house is evaluating which people it might be able to partner with on big pieces of legislation they hope to get through in the future. >> jared kushner volunteered to go to the senate intelligence committee to talk about meetings he did have with russian officials in december. one of those meetings was one that he attended along with the now former nsa, mike flynn. >> reporter: that's right. and you heard spicer reiterate what white house officials have been telling us privately behind the scenes all morning, which is that, look, jared kushner met with a whole host of people during the transition process. that was one of his roles during the transition process. he has nothing to hide and has volunteered to come forward and answer questions, really trying to downplay the significance of that. but you heard over and over again that he was pressed that does this not overshadow this white house at the very moment that the president has appointed jared kushner to a new role, trying to break through some of the government gridlock with business sensitivities, and at the very moment the white house is trying to turn the page on this big defeat of obamacare. this is some of the lingering questions the white house is dealing with as he tries to move forward after a big wall over the weekend. >> lets go to my friend jake thurman who is on capitol hill right now. jake, it sounds like nunes' explanations are changing by the day. now he's saying he had to go to the white house to get this information because the white house was the only place he could actually view the informion. >> it's kind of dizzng i'm having a tough time. i'm bouncing around the room a little bit with all his explanations. nunes is squirming a little bit. he's not been able to keep his answers straight. the facts are there are secure facilities in the capitol, and he controls one. he's the chairman of the intelligence committee. so to say that there is no other method or place or, you know, way for him to view classified information is simply not true. the republican leadership in the house, though, is sticking with him at this moment and saying, listen, he's totally able to conduct this investigation. paul ryan and devin nunes have a longstanding relationship. they served on the ways and means committee for many years before they were in these high-profile positions, so ryan is going to tend toward devin nunes in this fight. >> and when will the democrats and the rest of the community be able to see the information nunes was able to see? >> it's a tough question, and this is a prime example of the scarred and very tough feelings between democrats and republicans on capitol hill. because of this kind of lack of cooperation on things like this. when donald trump says he's going to work with democrats on capitol hill to pass lejts la legislation, we kind of see this and think, you're not even at the starting block. you're not at step one. the relationship is pretty bad right now and this underscores that. >> how does the white house get out from underneath the perception that this looked like it could have been orchestrated by the white house. devin nunes going there and then briefing the president. are they going to be able wipe that away? >> it looks like lee kokeystone and nunes would need to have been let in to where he could access the information he needed. and if it was made public that he went to the white house to get information that the white house should have in order to brief the president on the information that he has, and you couple that with the fact that paul ryan couldn't get 218 votes, which isn't surprising because the reform package they put together had approximately 17% support, and the whole thing looks a little like keystone cops, and you begin to wonder, as a republican party, can they actually get it together and be a governing party? >> joel benson is sitting here with me. paul ryan says he's standing by devin nunes. given that and given the republicans' entrenchment in the senate and house intelligence committees, how much recourse do they have if they want to move it to a special investigator if need be? >> i think it will take a few more bumps in the road. this was definitely a problem for nunes. i think it's going to take mocrats and republicans calling for it. wee had republicans speaking out, particularly on the senate side, calling for a select committee already to do it. it would really be the quickest thing and the smartest thing, frankly, for the president and congress to agree to. every time they do something wrong, every time they raise a scintilla of a question of how they're conducting it, it calls into it the trust of everybody conducting it, the president and nunes. >> even if the cloud isn't getting darker, it looks like it's getting darker, and that is the perception more than anything else? >> a, they either don't know what they're doing or there is some mass cover-up. the way they're behaving isn't upward and honest and transparent. >> george, rick, and kristin welker at the white house. we're going to talk to the public about what they want on health care, if anything, and can he get things done? stay with us. [vo] quickbooks introduces jeanette. and her new business: i do, to go. jeanette was excellent at marrying people. but had trouble getting paid. not a good time, jeanette. even worse. now i'm uncomfortable. but here's the good news, jeanette got quickbooks. send that invoice,eanette. looks like they viewed it. and, ta-da! paid twice as fast. oh, she's an efficient officiant. way to grow, jeanette. new. get paid twice as fast for free. visit quickbooks-dot-com. knows how it feels to seees your numbers go up, despite your best efforts. but what if you could turn things around? what if you could love your numbers? discover once-daily invokana®. it's the #1 prescribed sglt2 inhibitor that works to lower a1c. invokana® is a pill used along with diet and exercise to significantly lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. and in most clinical trials, the majority reached an a1c goal of 7 percent or lower. invokana® works around the clock by sending some sugar out of your body through the process of urination. it's not for lowering systolic blood pressure or weight, but it may help with both. invokana® can cause important side effects, including dehydration, which may cause you to feel dizzy, faint,lightheaded,or weak, upon standing. other side effects may include kidney problems, genital yeast infections,changes in urination, high potassium, increases in cholesterol, risk of bone fracture, or urinary tract infections, possibly serious. serious side effects may include ketoacidosis, which can be life threatening. stop taking and call your doctor right away if you experience symptoms or if you experience symptoms of allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, or difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take invokana® if you have severe liver or kidney problems or are on dialysis. tell your doctor about any medical conditions and medications you take. using invokana® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. it's time to turn things around. lower your blood sugar with invokana®. imagine loving your numbers. there's only one invokana®. ask your doctor about it by name. at angie's list, we believe there are certain things you can count on, like a tired dog is a good dog. [ dog barking, crashing ] so when you need a dog walker or a handyman, we can help you find the right person for the job. discover all the ways we can help at angie's list. will your business be ready when growth presents itself? american express open cards can help you take on a new job, or fill a big order or expand your office and take on whatever comes next. find out how american express cards and services can help prepare you for growth at open.com. bruts in senate intelligence committee. both leaders of that committee, richard burr and warner both releasing joint statements about jared kushner, donald trump's senior adviser, who will be interviewed by the committee. he said we've continued to follow the facts wherever they lead us. this demonstrates that commitment. mr. kushner will certainly not the last person the committee calls to give testimony but we expect him to provide answers to key questions that have arisen in our inquiry. the timing in his testimony is still beingetermined but will only come after the committee has determined that it will receive y documents or information necessary to ensure the meeting is productive for all sides. a reminder, sean spicer a couple moments ago saying that jared kushner did volunteer for this. i will be regarding the meetings that jared cushner had with russian officials in december as a part of the transition on donald trump's inauguration as the president of the united states. mi meanwhile, back to capitol hill. voters were making their voices heard across the country just 24 hours after the health care bill was pulled. this is what texas congressman and lindsay graham faced back hope. >> to replace it. good, good. how about break it off? >> as you can hear, the republican lawmakers are facing a little more than jeers than cheers as they address voters. so with health care tabled for now, had president trump and paul ryan are looking ahead to tax reform. but is that the right move in joining me is ryan costello. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> the first things first, the health care plan did not get passed. was it the freedom caucus and they're digging in their heels and saying no or was at this time president's inability to make a deal? >> i think speaker ryan hit the nail on the head. finger pointing only goes so far. we need to find a government majority to get health care accomplished. that may or may not happen looking across the aisle. >> you were prepared to vote no in that, correct? >> i was. i advanced this bill out of committee because i felt the framework is appropriate. when you look at it, clearly we had to make a measurable impact in terms of bringing down cost of premiums and making sure that more had access to affordable insurance. >> so who is easier to work, with i'm sorry to interrupt you. is it the freedom caucus, very conservative freedom caucus or is it better to go more toward the moderates and then get some democrats on board on something as hard to pass as tax reform? >> well, you won't get as broad of a reform if you do get he moderate democrats into the fold. i could be wrong on that. where i think we have to head is have the house freedom caucus look at the bill as we are improving upon it and say, that the reforms we're trying to get done is a major step forward. take win that's we can get now and live to reform even more another day. the other big piece of this is that tom price, the health and human services secretary, some of what we are trying to do is create legislation so he can move forward in a regulatory manner to make even more reform. >> i understand that. what about for tax reform? >> i don't know. chairman brady would be the better spokesperson. i think you'll only get so far on tax reform since we weren't able to get health care refm to the finish line. some of it depends on what kind we're talking about. reducing rates is something everyone agrees with. if you get into the more controversial measures surrounding tax reform, it remains to be seen on where the majority is. >> congressman costello, republican of pennsylvania. thank you for joining us. now let's check the microsoft pulse question. we were asking, should democrats work republicans to fix obamacare? 81% of you say yes. work republicans. that's what the people are saying. at least the peels voting on our pulse poll. we'll have more when we come back. i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen. and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option, click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. click to activate your within. liz assumed all dressingsrust were made equal. assume nothing. just like the leading brands, these kraft dressings are made with high quality ingredients, at a price you can feel good about. no wonder kraft is so good. such was the day that i couldon get to a couple of the topics in my show. for more, you'll have to go. why was devin nunes at the white house in and even sean spicer saying that he would need a serious course correction. >> we've got it all covered for you. thank you so much. i'm kate snow. here are the top stories beginning this hour. a bizarre twist after what was already a controversial move by the house intelligence committee chairman last week. a meeting between devin nunes and a secret source on white house grounds who gave him information about government surveillance. plus, big news this week from the senate intelligence committee. two sources confirming to nbc news, top white house adviser jared cushner, prush's son-in-law, will be interviewed as part of an inquiry about possible ties about

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Pennsylvania , Syria , Russia , Texas , Russian , Americans , America , American , Joel Benson , Gerald Comey , Lindsay Graham , Jared Kushner , Devin Nunes , Ryan Costello , John Decker , Mike Flynn , Sean Spicer , Jake Thurman , Paul Ryan , Richard Burr ,