just think about that for a moment. he wore a shirt, said i need a kidney, somebody posted it online and he's about to have his life saved. those are some great americans. that wraps us up this hour, see, i told you, there's always good news somewhere. i'm stephanie ruhle. i'm back at 11:00 with more news. guess what? ali is back. for two weeks i have not seen my partner, but today we'll reunite. and all day long you can find me on twitter. and more news with my friend hallie jackson. >> i was wondering why it seemed so quiet for the last few weeks, steph. strange. see you in an hour. thank you very much. this morning, an overarching theme to headlines emerging from washington to hollywood to asia, major players hoping, maybe, to turn words into action. you have president trump meeting with democrats and republicans with the future of nearly a million dreamers on the line. but of course, there's a sticking point. one big enough to shut down the government. so that could happen. it probably wouldn't, but it's not sure what a deal would look

like as we wait to see from that pod youium what house speaker p ryan has to say. plus, breaking news overnight in the talks between north korea and south korea at the border. will we see pyongyang's athletes at the olympics? what does that mean for for talks in the nuclear program? and yes, she's making headlines still with new developments on a potential, potential presidential run for oprah. her best friend is talking about, democrats are talking about it and the white house is talking about it. who is saying no, and others are saying, go, oprah! we start with peter alexander starting off with a foggy white house behind him there. peter, walk us through the immigration discussion because the big question here, we know what the president wants. he wants money for the border wall. what is he going to give up to get it? >> that's a big question. this is the bottom line as we

prepare for the deal that the republicans thought they had. the president backed off on that entirely. he wants $18 billion on thele with a. a promise he made to his supporters in tennessee yesterday, monday. democrats say that's a non-starter. and the president wants tighter immigration restrictions. an end of chain migration, the visa program. so the biggest changes for those and some of the biggest advocates for changes will be here today. tom cotton of arkansas, among them, david purdue of georgia will be in attendance. all this ignores the issue of dreamers. the white house says it is open to it. it is a top priority for democrats who republicans say are trying to use that fight as leverage with the battle over the spending bill approaching. the deadline as we should note is coming up quickly. you have the government shutdown possible within ten days, so that could be leverage. the republicans say they won't let it be. the white house's senior adviser emphasized this point earlier today. take a listen. >> it is time for them to come to the table, we'll strike a

deal. the president wants to strike a deal with the democrats. and the time is now to do it. the democrats are really running a very big risk if they go in this direction of basically saying, we're going to hold on the spending deal because of the daca deal. >> it is national security at risk here, they say. the expiration date for the daca program is march, but former homeland security adviser officials say in order to ensure the dreamers can stay without any impact, the fight over this program would need to be resolved this month. i just spoke to mark shore, the director of legislative affairs at the white house, they have been very clear about what they want in terms of immigration. they say democrats need to offer something up in return. >> peter alexander there at the white house watching all of it. thank you, see you in a little bit. i want to go to the hill now where msnbc's garrett haake has been talking to folks. you just did an interview 35 seconds ago, tell us what you are hearing from lawmakers on that end of pennsylvania avenue.

it seems republicans went from optimistic to cautiously optimistic to skeptical and skittish ahead of the january 19th deadline. >> reporter: yeah, hallie, that is fair. forget if i'm redundant to what peter said. i just interviewed senator tom tillis, one of the republicans in the meeting in the white house later today. the sense i've been getting from him and other folks i've been talking to are the odds of some big deal getting done in the next ten days could be a little shorter than they looked a few days ago. republicans feel like democrats are slow walking this, that they are not necessarily negotiating in good faith. that they are hung up on the issue of the wall. democrats feel like republicans keep adding items to some kind of conservative immigration wish list. because it is the immigration part of this that has been the big sticking point. but it was fascinating just now, i know we don't have time to turn the sound around, but i asked senator til lirlis about . he said he wants to get to an agreement. does the agreement have to include the wall?

he said no. this is not about a physical sea to shining sea wall. so it's an interesting departure here that you are hearing congressional republicans say. this does not have to be about that, but the million-dollar question in all of this has been and will be until noon today when the meeting breaks up, what is the president willing to accept? >> that's exactly right. >> reporter: even though republican hard-liners on immigration do seem to want to deal on the daca part of this, but what does the president really want? and no one in this business has 100% confidence they have the answer to that question. >> garrett haake with his running shoes on in the capitol. i want to bring in national political reporter for "the washington post" and a msnbc political analyst and friend of the show, robert costa, one of bob's colleagues at "the post," white house reporter and reporter anna parker, and sabrina sadiki. let me start with you, bob. we're watching the house speaker's news conference set to

start. we are going to dip in and bring you any of that once paul ryan shows up and starts to take questions. in advance, i apologize for any interruptions. bob, garrett mentioned something interesting and talked about the congressional republicans, the hard-line congressional republicans. but if you look at who is going to be at the meeting today, we have a graphic to pull up here, you are not seeing as steve bannon pointed out, the mark meadowses, the steve kings, here's what mark meadows had to say this morning. >> you don't see steve king, you don't see mark meadows, there is none of the hardcore, you know, voices in there. the kind of the sessions-type guys. only people that are looking to sort of compromise. >> bob, is that a bad thing? >> we're watching perhaps a change of the currents within the republican party. with that images from camp david with the congressional leadership standing behind president trump. at least politically at the moment, he's moving away from the bannon-style hard-charging style, the nationalism when it

comes to issues like immigration. they are thinking more about political victories than political ideology. >> what does a compromise look like? in two hours from now, if this meeting wraps up, what are we going to be hearing from this thing? >> there are a lot of veteran politicians in this room. the question is, can they each walk out of the room and say to their respective base, we have a win. and that means republicans can walk away saying, we didn't get a wall but got something close to it. and the democrats can say we extended the dreamers permits but agreed to border security, but we didn't have bricks and mortar or concrete as part of the project. >> but ashley, take a look at who is in the meeting. 20 people will be around the table, which is fine, but that at some point, there's a lot of cooks in the kitchen, right? we all know what is that like. >> there's a sense that the meeting is not necessarily the meeting in two hours where they walk out with the deal. there's a lot of people if there was going to be a deal are not in the meeting.

and this feels a bit more like an area of ideas and making sure everyone is heard from. and then it will likely deal with a smaller group. briefly back to what he was talking about on the basis, that is right. the question of the wall is that it's a bit of symantecs. there's a world in which a master deal maker like chuck schumer and the president could agree on something. and it is not necessarily a bricks and mortar wall. but i was talking to people in the white house, while it doesn't necessarily have to be a full wall across the entire southern border -- >> which not a lot of people think is reasonable or realist or possible. >> or practical. but the idea that you're just going to throw money and have a couple drones and the president is going to say, okay, we got our wall, that is not a starter. they are going to need something physical and tangible in some way. >> sabrina, there is also the question of trust, frankly. and this is something chuck schumer brought up just ahead of this meeting, the idea that perhaps the white house, the president is not a partner in

good faith in this. here's what chuck schumer had to say. >> the white house issued a series of unreasonable demands entirely outside the scope of our ongoing negotiations about daca and border security. it's part of a pattern of behavior on the part of this white house during sensitive bipartisan negotiations. >> well, you know, it was in september that chuck schumer and nancy pelosi had a brief flurry of meetings with president trump and thought they agreed to this very issue, that they would have leverage ahead of the holidays to force action on daca. and they thought that the president had agreed to the contours of a deal that he would actually extend protections for dreamers at that point in time. obviously, that deteriorated quickly. so i don't think they have the confidence that this president is committed to dreamers. i think they do believe that anything that resembles the wall is a non-starter.

and it comes down to the city man ticks. both parties agreed to fencing in immigration. so i think there's a change in the definition of what this funding is going toward. and they won't necessarily call it a wall. the question is, can the president then feel if that's a victory for him. and can the democrats feel like they are not giving in to the perception of supporting a border wall. >> i brought to the mark shore, the director of the legislative affairs on this show. democrats say, you went back on your word. he said, we didn't do that. they resist the fact that it happened. and something else from inside the white house is a growing acceptance that likely bob costa will have another punt. in the next ten days by next friday, it is not like all of a sudden everyone is coming together and there is a big deal on daca and budget caps and everything else. they need more time. i want to know if that is the sense you're getting from folks you have been talking to. >> well, that's the sense i'm picking up in my reporting on a variety of fronts. it's on the fiscal deal they're

talking about, and even about the dreamer program. could they extend the permits for the young thousand undocumented immigrants past the march 1st deadline. because they know they still want to work this out. and each side is prepared for a standoff. >> talk broadly for me for a second. step back, look at this from 30,000 feet. because your colleagues, somebody we know well, james homan, had a post today that said, the president is similar atticly alienating the latino group. you talk about what happened in el salvador with the administration pulling back on temporary protective status for people from el salvador after the 2001 earthquake. not unexpected, but this comes on the heels of what he did in honduras and haiti as well. now the situation with dreamers. how does this affect, if at all, the republican party going forward? because i think back to when you and i covered 2012 and the autopsy came out. and a big part of that was go after members of the latino

community. >> with the republican party embracing president trump as a candidate and now as president. they have move in a totally different direction on immigration than they were in 2012 and 2013 when they came out with the autopsy report. and part of it to play to the base, because the base sees immigration as a visceral issue for their own lives that connect to the issue of the economy in jobs. and they see it in a different kind of way than many other americans and democrats see the issue. but that's the gamble the republicans are making. >> robert costa, i so appreciate you coming on the show this morning, thank you. i'm going to ask sabrina and ashley to hang out for the next 48 minutes. we have the rare talks between north korea and south korea taking a turn. what does that mean for the olympics to start in one month? and what does it mean per pyongyang's nuclear program. this is interesting stuff developing in the last few hours. you won't want to miss the live report from the region, next.

the handshake heard around the world right there. the unusual face-to-face meeting between north and south korean officials ended in what you could call a break through to that could lower the temperature in the standoff between kim jong-un's nuclear ambitions. this developing overnight. well, that's what we thought might happen. after that meeting wrapped up, we got this from reuters just a bit ago quoting a north korean official.

quote, north korea's weapons are only aimed at the u.s., not south korea, russia or china. so let's get the latest on the talks from along the demilitarized zone between north and south korea. from nbc news chief global correspondent bill neely joining us from seoul. there's a lot to talk about today. you have the new bluster from pyongyang now. you also have the new statement from olympics officials with words that north korea athletes may actually be going to the games. fill us in. >> reporter: yeah, hallie, that's right. the words are from the president of the ioc. remember, he's not just a sports administrator, he's a global politician. and he said, these proposals, which i'll tell you about in just a second, mark a great step forward in the olympic spirit. so the main proposal is that north korea will go to the winter olympics in south korea that start in exactly a month's time. and it will send a rather large delegation. remember, it hasn't been at in

olympics for eight years, so it will send a large delegation of athletes. it hopes the ioc will give a lot of the athletes a wild card. it will also send taekwondo officials and journalists. and officials will get a free pass into south korea also, it seems. and a couple things away from sport that were decided, a military hotline has been reopened. remember, that's the second cross-border hotline that has been open again. and also perhaps quite significantly, the two sides have agreed to have military talks that would be intended to reduce tension and prevent future conflict. remember, this -- these talks today may have been mostly about figure skaters, but of course in the background is the nuclear crisis. so talks between the two koreans at some time in the future about reducing tension.

that is what is certainly here in seoul. they would really like to see that, hallie. >> bill neely is reporting after a long night and week for you. i want to bring in an asian expert, former cia director and ashley parker is back with us. smart points were made there, this is not about sports or just about sports. this is something broader. >> absolutely. kim jong-un continues to show he is dealing with a weak hand he's being dealt with. this is brilliant because it costs north korea absolutely nothing. they will send a delegation of cheerleaders and taekwondo guys to reduce tension. but his greater aim has put a wedge between the alliance. and this is brilliant.

>> is this going to work? will he drive the wedge deeper between the u.s. and south korea? >> it is true that the administration is progressive. and haas bee's been trying to p the dialogue and the maximum pressure policy. so why not create the wedge in? that's why, they just came out with a statement to say, hey, our nuclear weapons are aimed at washington or new york. not south korea. >> well, so the president has sort of tried to take credit, at least on twitter, saying his tough stance is what led to the opening of the talks between north and south korea. but my understanding is that north korea is either talking to the u.s. or to south korea. so the fact, i'm curious what you think, but the fact they are now talking to south korea is probably a strategy to isolate the u.s. it's not necessarily the result of president trump's strong words on twitter and elsewhere, is that right? >> yeah. i don't think it's the president's rhetoric or twitter helping. but i think trump does have a point in the sense that the

north koreans have realized they are not getting anywhere with us. that's true. why not get to the south koreans and create the official lines and isolate the united states. >> sabrina, go ahead. >> i was going to say between the koreans and washington, lindsey graham is out tweeting that if north korea participates in the olympics, the u.s. should not. and sarah huckabee sanders says the u.s. will participate, but a i mid the bluster, the trump administration would like to engage in diplomatic negotiations. they see this as a positive step that north korea is signaling they may be willing to come to the negotiating table, but it is telling that they have not had a signal of concessions. pyongyang is bristling talks of denuclearization. there's a lot of backlash, especially from hawkish republicans on capitol hill. >> hawkish republicans like, for example, senator graham. you reference that tweet, that u.s. athletes are going to go to the olympics at this point. and apparently be alongside some

of the north korean athletes. i want to talk about the strategy here. you touched on key points, but you heard bill knee lneely talk the international talks. the north korean officials said, hey, let's open the meeting up and make this a public meeting and bring in the press. and the south koreans kind of balked, explain why. >>propaganda. it's image re-making, it makes north korea look benevolent. we are the nuclear power now. we are strong and now going to finally allow -- we will come to the olympics. you in south korea have been begging for them to do that and let the world see. from the south korea perspective, they didn't want to play that card. >> why would they let kim jong-un play that card? it doesn't serve their interest. >> but to lindsey graham's point, he said if thousands are going to die, thousands are going to die over there. that comment was not really helpful. but i hope that south korea does

not make too great of a concession to the north koreans to participate in the olympics. >> we reached out to the white house to get reaction to all this. we are hearing reaction from the state department which says the u.s. remains clear-eyed about north korea's track record on negotiations, adding that all political phrase, time will tell, one we have heard before. what is the trump administration's next move here? >> i mean, that is the key question. and there is a debate within the administration about, you have heard the president say recently, as recently at camp david, he would be open to talks to north korea, assuming there were some preconditions. he's previously said he wouldn't be open to talk. there are some people like secretary of state rex tillerson stressing diplomacy. there's other people, there's a new report out today talking about, i believe it is called a nosebleed strike. so it's -- >> it's sort of bubbling around in circles for a while. >> it's a policy debate within

the administration right now. >> the idea that there could be value in the talks from the u.s. perspective, the talks that happened overnight, is there value? can the u.s. get something out of these discussions between north and south korea? >> not if they are not willing to talk about denuclearization. if it is just about setting up delegations to the olympics and helping north korea for p.r. purposes, it doesn't help the nuclear or missile crisis. we should have proper expectation here. the north koreans have been playing this game for a long time. we shouldn't have the heightened expectation now that we are making a progress on the nuclear missile front just because now they are sending up the delegation to the olympics. >> what is the reaction for americans if they go to the olympics and see the north korea athletes walk out? >> well, they are entertaining to watch. and north and south, maybe they walk together. and it's a gesture. >> it's a pleasure to have you onset to us as opposed to remote. ashley and sabrina, much more to talk about, including the hearing on capitol hill

happening right now. take a look, a possible attack on u.s. personnel in cuba. it is something we have covered a lot on the show. and now there are new developments this morning. we are bringing you the latest in the mystery illness affecting more than 20 state department workers. and why the secretary of state says diplomats are not going back to cuba just yet. plus, on the other side of the hill, another live look at house gop leadership coming out for the news conference. we expect to see paul ryan any second. we'll bring it to you live when he brings questions from the reporters many the room. i no wondering, "what if?" uncertainties of hep c. i let go of all those feelings. because i am cured with harvoni. harvoni is a revolutionary treatment for the most common

type of chronic hepatitis c. it's been prescribed to more than a quarter million people. and is proven to cure up to 99% of patients who've have had no prior treatment with 12 weeks. certain patients can be cured with just 8 weeks of harvoni. before starting harvoni, your doctor will test to see if you've ever had hepatitis b, which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after harvoni treatment. tell your doctor if you've ever had hepatitis b, a liver transplant, other liver or kidney problems, hiv or any other medical conditions and about all the medicines you take including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with harvoni can cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects of harvoni include tiredness, headache and weakness. ready to let go of hep c? ask your hep c specialist about harvoni. you're smart.eat you already knew that. but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is, and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter. this is truecar.

what ifmy chest hurts.cal emergeni can't breathe.e? what you need is mobile help. america's premier mobile medical alert system. most systems only work at home. but with mobile help, you get help outside the home, with coverage nationwide on one of the largest cellular networks, at the press of a button. call the number on your screen for a free, full color brochure. we'll send you everything you need! including this base station, the patented mobile device, and the waterproof pendant and wrist button. you can also add the fall button that automatically detects falls and signals help. call today and receive a risk-free 30-day trial. there is no equipment to buy and no long-term contract. for a limited time, you will also receive a free emergency key box with your plan purchase. remember, mobile help keeps you safe coast to coast. call

we are back now with a look at the morning headlines. nbc news learned president trump could meet face-to-face with robert mueller and with one of his investigators within a matter of weeks with a source familiar with the discussion. it is not likely mueller's investigation will agree to anything other than an in-person sit-down, but i should caution the talks are preliminary. in a blow to the trump administration, regulators reject unanimously a proposal by this guy, energy secretary rick perry, that would prop up the nuclear and coal power plants. this includes four people hand-picked by president trump. the decision is being celebrated

by renewable energy and natural gas advocates. house majority whip steve scalise, we have just learned as we take a live look right now that he will go through a planned surgery tomorrow. part of his recovery from the gunshot wounds he received at the congressional baseball practice back in june. when this was announced this morning, he got a standing ovation from the house conference. he will remain fully engaged in his work as he heals from this and looks forward to return to the capital as soon as he can. i'm sure everybody is wishing him good luck with the surgery. and also live on capitol hill, a senate foreign relations subcommittee is holding a hearing on the mystery illness involving two dozen diplomatic staff at the u.s. embassy in havana. this all happened back in 2016. here's what cuban american senator bob me nen des hnendez . >> it is unimaginable that the

u.s. did not know about the attacks. they must have begun given tacid approval to foreign agents to operate in cuba. the scope of the attacks is too specific. >> secretary of state rex tillerson says he has no plans to bring a full staff to cuba despite the new fbi report casting doubt there was any kind of sonic attack many the first place. this mystery just keeps getting deeper. here's what tillerson told the associated press, quote, i would be intentionally put them back in harm's way. why in the world would i do that when i have no means whatsoever to prothat? let's bring in josh who is covering the hearing. he ran out to talk to us about the new reporting. josh, thank you. ashley and sabrina are back with us. josh, i'll start with you, i'll start with the up in comments from secretary tillerson because he's not convinced it seems that

cuba's hands are clean in all this. >> reporter: that's right. we said to secretary tillerson in this interview, look, it's been more than a year since this started. and it has been months since you kicked out cuban diplomats and pulled americans out of cuba. and you are still not able to say what is happening, who is doing it. is it justified to have worsened our relations with cuba that much. and he was pushing back to say there was no way to protect the people down there as long as this is unsolved. even though we don't know who did it, he is still certain somebody in cuba's government has to be able to stop it. >> what have we learned from the fbi, too? this is a new wrinkle in all of this as well. >> reporter: the funny thing is the fbi won't publicly admit they are investigating because they don't like to talk about the ongoing investigations. jim comey and hillary clinton aside. but we do know from the report that the a.p. has learned that the fbi is essentially ruling out the sonic attacks. they are not saying there were attacks, but the sonic attacks

don't have any evidence. and they are continuing to rule out the harm to our diplomats in havana. >> if it is not a sonic attack, if we don't know if cuba is behind this, there's no evidence, what else is there? >> reporter: well, it's the million-dollar question, but there are a lot of theories investigators have looked at, including other types of energy waves, such as microwaves, radio waves, toxins that could be in the environment, and other types of bizarre advanced scientific methods to use to harm someone. >> josh, sabrina and ash she le onset. i want to talk about arizona jeff flake who is on the intelligence committee. he has really serious concerns about what it means to not have a full staff in havana. here's what he had to say. >> we have drawn down our embassy. we have a scaled back staff of 12. we have a very important year in cuba when there's going to be a

transition to somebody other than a castro being head of government. and we've got nobody there. virtually to watch and to understand this process. that's dangerous. >> so how does the trump administration figure this out? >> so what is fascinating is it really is a mystery. and what that has allowed is for anyone who has a point of view to sort of argue their side. so you just showed senator flake talking about how this is a real concern. >> yeah, we should staff up there. >> then senator marco rubio is taking the exact opposite stance arguing a harder line against cuba. similar to what senator menendez is saying. these attacks couldn't have happened without the regime knowing about this. so it will allow the regime to do what the republican senators are doing, choose their set of facts in this mystery and weigh in accordingly. >> and we want to mention house speaker paul ryan speaking live at the news conference. we'll dip in when he starts to take questions, but in the meantime, you had a quick thought to get in, sabrina?

>> jeff flake is instrumental in this. he's a firm reporter who pushed trump to reverse the obama-era policy. he has a stake in this. it is notable at the end of the day, he did restrict u.s. business travel and commercial travel to cuba. he certainly has tried to roll back obama's renewed ties. so i think the administration is struggling to point to its justification for doing so. they have been up pointing to what they said were attacks as part of the rationale to say obama's policy wasn't working. in what way does the potential that maybe the evidence does not support that claim undermine their decision that they made. >> and josh, with advanced apologies in case i have to interrupt you to paul ryan, i want to give you a sense of what the hearing is supposed to accomplish. what could come from the discussion happening right now on the hill? >> the state department said so little about the actual timeline of when this starts, how the

u.s. figured out what was happening and what they did about it that lawmakers are trying to fare it out, the details. tillerson said there's a reason the u.s. is not giving details. they are not keen on giving whoever perpetrated this a lot of information about exactly what they did. but the lawmakers are going to be going after the dates. when did this start? how many people? when did you figure it out? what did you do about it? and what do you plan to do about it now? >> and i imagine part of it is transparency, getting the stuff on the public record so we're not relying on sources say x or y on this, right? >> trying to get as much of this out. in the absence of details, it has allowed the cuban government to say, how can you possibly justify the really dramatic policy steps you have taken when you can't show anything actually happened. >> and josh, how do you see secretary tillerson moving forward on this. it seems as though he's adamant he does not want to be forced to staff the havana embassy. >> that's right.

and tillerson made a keen focus on we're going to protect our people, we won't put them in harm's way, but there's a difficult position to sustain going forward when you have the fbi with this report saying, we have been looking into this for months. we have gone down to havana four times and got nothing. and the state department without anything really there trying to say, no, this is still real, these were not just incidents. they are not illnesses. they are deliberate attacks. i think tillerson will have a difficult time sustaining that policy unless the u.s. is able to really show something to the public. >> josh, stick around for a second. i put your national security reporter on versus your state department reporter hat. and then i bring in ashley and sabrina, too. you have been watching paul ryan. right now he's out thing the economic plan and taking questions. let's listen in. >> we're havinging conversations. i already know where you're going. just kidding. i'm not going to negotiate with media on such things.

what we want to do is have a -- we want to have a daca compromise. we want to make sure that daca's problem is solved. but as you have heard me say time and again, this has to be balanced so we don't have a daca problem five, ten years down the road. so while we deal with the daca issue that does have to be dealt with, we want to make sure we have the right kind of interior and border enforcement so we don't have another daca problem down the road. the president is inviting republicans and democrats in the house and senate today, down at the white house, to advance the issue. we are hopeful and confident that the bipartisan talks will bear fruit. and it has to be a good balanced package and we want to see a solution on that. andy? [ inaudible question ] i don't know if it affects a premise, but we are having bipartisan issues or

conversations. we are having conversations about a cap agreement because there are things we want to address with the cap agreement, like the military. and there are other things like daca. we understand the deadlines and are having good bipartisan conversations. i won't get into the details on all these things, but there's a lot of work to do. all of us from the house and senate, republicans and democrats, know we have to get working on the democrats. her right there, sorry. >> reporter: thank you. with the deadline next friday cannot reach -- >> i won't get into the hypotheticals. we're getting into good decis n discussions and when i have more to report, i will report it. conversations are having a comeback. the rules committee hearings. we have encouraged our members all along to talk about budget process reforms. many of us have opinions on this issue, but i want our members to have conversations. we have members very frustrated with the corps, the army corps

of engineers and the army corpse of engineers is not up to stuff to get their job done. so that is something we'll have conversations about. thanks, everybody. >> so a quick q&a session from paul ryan at his weekly news conference. not surprisingly, a lot focused on the immigration discussion happening today in 50 minutes from now over at the white house. and about daca, which is, of course, the program put in place under president obama to protect roughly 80,000 immigrants brought to this country illegally when they were younger. i want to bring in now nbc's kasie hunt who was in the room as the house speaker was talking. kasie, paul ryan doesn't want to show his cards to the media, obviously. >> reporter: that's right, hallie. he really basically refused me, he does this quite a lot in these briefings, but i would say today the number of questions that he sort of used his classic dodge to avoid answering was on

the high side. and he repeatedly refused to say, hey, look, i'm not going to negotiate in public. i think on daca, that is really the critical question that we hear on capitol hill, and i know you there at the white house are going to be focused on in the coming weeks. the way he framed it was a balanced package. now, the question, of course, and what that essentially means is, how do we sort out what they are doing for the dreamers on the one hand and border security was the phrase paul ryan used to describe the other piece of this. the white house, of course, wants to call it a wall. that's something -- he was not asked directly to see if the wall needs to be build in exchange to have a path here. that's not something he said in the past. that's the poisoning pill to bring down the negotiations here and potentially throw us into a lot of uncertainty. other questions about whether democrats are willing to shut

down the government over this as an issue. because again, and i know we have talked about this before, but democrats have shown willingness to increase border securi security. they forget they are defending a lot of seats in the senate, states that president trump won in 2016. this is something they are willing to go along with, but the photo-cutting photo op, here is your wall, is not something for them to go along with. thank you, kasie. coming up after the break, we are talking about what a lot of democrats are talking about. we are doing it. we are having the discussion because it is happening in political circles to the buzz surrounding #oprah2020. even as a person in the know tells nbc, the queen of talk is not planning to do it. we'll tell you what this means for democrats. i'm mark and i quit smoking with chantix. i tried, um, cold turkey. i tried the patches. i was tired and i was fed up. i wanted to try something different. along with support, chantix (varenicline)

is proven to help people quit smoking. chantix reduced my urge to smoke. compared to the nicotine patch, chantix helped significantly more people quit smoking. 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. i'm finally free of smoking. ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.

it's really hard to even think about her not being around... that's why i'm so grateful she got screened... and they caught the blockage in time. if you're over 50... call life line screening now and schedule an appointment near you. it could be the best thing for you and your family. for just $149, you'll receive five screenings- including ones that use ultrasound technology to look inside your arteries... for plaque that builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and heart disease. after all, 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom is a stroke. these painless screenings go beyond a normal annual checkup, and this package will save you over 50%. call today and start with a free health assessment to understand your best plan of action. i still need mom. i want her with me as long as possible. life line screening. the power of prevention.

call now to learn more.

i do think she's intrigued by the idea, i do know that. and i know after watching the oprah show, that you have a right to change your mind. i don't think at this point she's actually considering it. >> that, of course, is "cbs this morning" oprah friend and confidant gayle king saying that oprah winfrey is not considering to run for president but intrigued by it. and a person in the know said this to kate snow, it's not happening, she has no intention, no intention of running. while we wait for oprah to

actually herself weigh in, it's worth taking a look at the split among democrats on this. congressman jackie speier tweeting, run, oprah, run! and senator kristin gillibrand told reporters, i think her voice is powerful and important, and whatever she wants to do, she should do. but nancy pelosi was more, let's call it lukewarm. referencing republicans, she told reporters, if we're going into a place where they are devaluing experience in terms of substance and legislative acumen and stuff like that, you might as well have somebody who knows what they don't know and would get the best possible people there. and another says, we welcome the challenge whether it is oprah winfrey or anyone else. what is that graphic? ashley and sabrina are here with me. i do think it is so early speculating for 2020.

a person who has not even said what she wants to do, but this is interesting what she's doing to democrats and what she's highlighting inside the democratic party. and i think this piece in "the new york times," the contributor writer wrote this, i want to pull it up on the screen. indeed, the magical thinking fueling the idea of oprah in 2020 is a worrisome sign about the state of the democratic party. that ms. winfrey could probably beat those considered likely front-runners, joe biden, kristin gillibrand, is devoid of the talent that the post-obama party has become. is that a valid point? >> sure. i think one thing about the democrats is that they have largely been able to mask some of their internal disagreements and sort of debates over where the policy should move. because of president trump and whatever fight they are having internally, they can always point to him as sort of being worse in their minds and something to unite against. and oprah is another bright,

shiny object, in which they are not forced to talk about. well, where is the party? is it moving left in the way bernie sanders tried to pull it. and i do think it is indicative of some sort of broader turmoil that democrats haven't quite yet faced. >> you know, i think if there's one thing this president has done, it's paved the way for there to be more unconventional candidates who do not have the typical experience or any experience in terms of public policy or governance. that's why there are some democrats saying, hey, don't dismiss this so swiftly because all the rules have gone out the window. at the same time, trump may have proved that you're seeing the consequences of having someone who does not have the governing experience in terms of a lot of dysfunction that we have seen. that's what nancy pelosi was getting at. the pendulum could swing back to someone more traditional and steer the country back into the right direction from the perspective of the party that

now thinks we have lost control. >> that's the view from the democratic corner or at least the turmoil inside the democratic party if you are going to take chatterton's piece. and there's those that it's why she was up there to get the lifetime aclooefment award but it was focusing on this moment of reckoning. you also have ivank trump mentioning that speech. let's all come together women and men and say time's up.

>> something tells me her dad won't retweet that one. >> just to do a brief reality check but this is not to say that oprah will run or not. everybody loves you better when you're not a politician. nothing away from oprah but the moment she gets in, she loses the sheen of being oprah. she becomes a politician and inves gattigative reporters hea hawaii to look at her private house. >> she was not speaking at the democratic national convention in was the golden globes. to that paid yodium. she mentioned attacks on the press. some took that as some sort of dig at the new administration or at the trump administration but there's a lot of reading between

the lines be maybe a little bit gratuitous. >> this speaks to the lively discussion we had during the commercial break that we created here. she is on the front page of every paper and she is. we'll see if she gets day three tomorrow morning. that's going to do it for this discussion. thank you very much for being onset with me here today. we're not quite finished. president trump has been calling on thousands more agents. he wants to beef up security along the border. we had to jacob live out west to talk about why these jobs are so hard to fill.

if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you,

ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.

so you know today president trump's talking imfwramigratio r at the white house. looking for more money for border security. he called for 5,000 more border patrol agents to be hired. finding people to police the areas has not always been so easy. jacob is this l.a. with more. you had a chance to see first hand what it's like to do this job. >> reporter: i sure did. it's pretty extreme out there. it's a big promise that the

president made 5,000 border patrols agents. they have been losing them faster than they can hire them if more years. they say morale is very low. we wanted to see for ourself. here is a bit ourself. take a look at this. >> this is a about it. this is the wall? >> this is rio grande. >> it looks pretty small. >> it's small. >> is this an area where people try to cross regularly is this. >> they do. >> assuming somebody comes out the river here, where are they going to this way? >> they can walk up to the highway, get picked up or continue on and make that trek. >> it's your job to go out there and find them in. >> yeah, because there's no one else. the challenges according to a memo are higher komcompensationd

a lack of employment options for spouses. >> that's holding build for border patrol. why is this? >> in order to build up the station we had to build up the infrastructure because there weren't a lot of homes and places to rent. >> they don't have houses to live out there. it was fascinating to see out there first hand. >> you talk about the hearing today. what exactly do they want to get from congress? what's the end game here? >> i'll give you some of the examples. it's been incredible to monitor this. one agent, union representative said their radios are not working in these remote areas. you'll remember late last year there was that unsolved mystery of the border patrol killed. in this very sector near the presido station and part of the challenge there was they were saying it's the middle of the

night. it's dark. we don't have a lot of communication with people out there. agents, union representatives are pointing to the fact they have a lack of infrastructure to support these agents as part of the reason people won't sign up for the job. >> keeping an eye on all of that. thank you. we head today's big picture. we cover a lot of interesting press conferences around these parts but never seen anything like this in washington. thank goodness for that. this is what looks like the prime minister of thailand. it's actually not him. it's a life sized cardboard cut out standing at a microphone. why? prime minister was supposed to take questions from journalists here. instead he decided to take off and leave the questions for his cardboard body double. he's done this kind of thing before. he once through a banana peel at the camera guy. he stopped to massage the ear of an audio tech. it sounds funny but it's not. it's bullying in the eyes of the human rights watch. thailand ranked 142 on the world

press freedom list out of 180 countries. kudos to those reporters who keep showing up and key asking questions. love to hear your questions. i'm headed over to the white house for my other job for nbc. right now i leave you in the capable hands of stephanie and ali, not a cardboard cut out, in the flesh. >> the real thing. >> i was thinking of staying on vacation and sending cardboard cut out in but on analysis they look deceivingly slimmer than i am. >> i'm glad it's you. >> we'll talk to you lart ter o. >> you head is too shiny for cardboa cardboard. he's back. it's tuesday, january 9th. let's get started. president trump is said to meet with a bipartisan group of house and senate members. >> to discuss next steps toward immigration reform. >> the big sticking p