IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

President rooting for a shutdown. TRANSCRIPT: 2/6/2018, MTP Daily

Guests: Jim Cramer, Shane Harris, Alfonso Aguilar, Jennifer Palmieri

Show: MTP DAILY Date: February 6, 2018 Guest: Jim Cramer, Shane Harris, Alfonso Aguilar, Jennifer Palmieri

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: We`re all out of time. My thanks to Jonathan Lemire, John Heilemann, and Sara Fagen.

That does it for our hour. I`m Nicolle Wallace. MTP DAILY starts right now.

Hi, Chuck.

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: Hi, Nicolle. We`re trying to figure out seriously, literally, figuratively, transactionally -- we`re confused by this President.

WALLACE: You`re confused?

TODD: I know.

WALLACE: Heilemann can break it down. He`s good.

TODD: Yes, that`s what I hear.

(LAUGHTER)

TODD: If it`s Tuesday, we can`t take the President literally and that`s a serious problem.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD (voice-over): The President seems to be once again rooting for a shutdown. Should we take this seriously?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I`d love to see a shutdown if we don`t get this stuff taken care of.

TODD (voice-over): Plus bubble, bubble. The toil and trouble of tying political capital to the always-volatile stock market.

STEVEN MNUCHIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: Again, markets move in both directions, and they`re functioning very well.

TODD (voice-over): And later treasonable doubt.

SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R), ARIZONA: Have we arrived at such a place of numb acceptance that we have nothing to say when the President of the United States casually suggests that those who choose not to stand or applaud his speech are guilty of treason?

TODD (voice-over): This is MTP DAILY and it starts now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: Good evening. I`m Chuck Todd here in Washington and welcome to a Tuesday edition of MTP DAILY.

Folks, we`ve hit the point where you can`t take anything this president says seriously or literally. Not on Russia, not on immigration, Russia, and not on the economy.

Now, we`ve got news and updates on all of those things today, but we begin with the President throwing a bit of a grenade into negotiations again to keep the government from shutting down again.

He repeatedly called for a shut down for some reason if Congress doesn`t act to seriously toughen up immigration laws.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If we don`t change it, let`s have a shutdown. We`ll do a shutdown, and it`s worth it for our country. I`d love to see a shutdown if we don`t get this stuff taken care of.

If we have to shut it down because the Democrats don`t want safety and, unrelated but still related, they don`t want to take care of our military? Then shut it down. We`ll go with another shut down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: I heard six or seven versions of the word in case you were unclear if he just sort of spoke, you know, haphazardly about it.

Republican Congresswoman Barbara Comstock tried to reason with the President, but he wasn`t having any of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BARBARA COMSTOCK (R), VIRGINIA: We don`t need a government shutdown on this. We really do not -- I think both sides have learned that a government shutdown was bad. It wasn`t good for them, and we do have bipartisan support on these things.

The people know, on a bipartisan basis, this problem and we can --

TRUMP: But, Barbara, we are not getting support from the Democrats. And you can say what you want, we`re not getting support from the Democrats on this legislation.

COMSTOCK: Well, I think if you put this bill up in the Senate, you will see a lot of --

TRUMP: Well, we`ll see. That`s one bill.

COMSTOCK: Yes.

TRUMP: We have to get that. They are not supporting us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: Well, Barbara Comstock`s got to be happy that her disagreeing with the President is caught on camera given that she is in a swing district in northern Virginia.

But, folks, in roughly an hour, the House is supposed to actually vote on a short-term deal to prevent the government from shutting down tomorrow.

The Republicans have wanted to separate DACA from government funding. But, apparently, the President doesn`t want to do that because this deal includes none of what the President seemingly just demanded.

So what does any of this mean? Did the President just blow up that deal? Will there be a shutdown tomorrow night? Who knows? Because, like I just said, we can`t take the President seriously or literally anymore.

But don`t take my word for it. Just moments after the President advocated for a shutdown, you knew the White House would revise things a little bit, and they insisted he wasn`t advocating for a shutdown.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you then clarify, would the President rather see a shutdown or a short-term spending fix this week?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Look, I -- again, we are not advocating for the shutdown. That`s the fault of the Democrats not being willing to do their jobs.

The President wants a long-term deal and he wants to get a deal on immigration, and we hope that Democrats will come to the table and get those things done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: Again, Republicans just got Chuck Schumer to separate DACA from the budget, and now the President is reconnecting DACA and the budget.

Anyway, folks, how many times have seen this? The President says one thing, then we`re told not to take it literally or seriously.

But if you`re one of the estimated 700,000 DACA recipients whose fate actually depends on these negotiations, can you risk taking this seriously from this White House?

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you saying that if they essentially stay out of trouble, even if that deadline is passed without some congressional solution, they will not --

JOHN KELLY, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: They`re not a -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- be at risk of deportation?

KELLY: They are not a priority for deportation.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

TODD: Whatever the phrase "priority for deportation" means, folks, we`re being told not to take the President literally everywhere we look.

Two weeks we go, the President said he would absolutely speak with Special Counsel Bob Mueller, quote, under oath. Now, his lawyers are reportedly urging him to refuse an interview because they`re worried Mueller might nab him with perjury. Translation: Mueller shouldn`t take what the President says literally.

Just last week at the State of the Union, the President talked about extending an open hand to work with Democrats. But put him before a crowd of supporters in Ohio and he suggests that Democrats committed treason for not applauding him.

The White House response? Don`t take him literally. He was being, quote, tongue in cheek.

So whether you`re Bob Mueller, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, or anyone else -- from world leaders to local politicians -- the message is clear. Don`t take anything he says literally.

The result? Chaos, confusion, and finger-pointing.

So does the words -- the President`s words have any impact anymore? We`re going to find out right now. Let me go to my Capitol Hill correspondent Kasie Hunt.

All right. You`re obviously the host of "KASIE D.C." on MSNBC on Sundays. Even against the Super Bowl, you should be watching that. And I know a lot of people did.

KASIE HUNT, NBC NEWS CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT: I tried to go.

TODD: Kasie, do the President`s words have any impact anymore? Is there chaos down here in Capitol Hill? Is this boat going to happen, or are people literally ignoring the President`s words today?

HUNT: I`m going to go with the latter of those two, Chuck. At this point, it`s all basically just noise.

I mean, Republicans and Democrats have learned the hard way, multiple times, under different scenarios. I would say Republicans absorbed this lesson first, followed by Chuck and Nancy, quote/unquote, that often times the President says something, either publicly or in a one-on-one meeting, and immediately his staff says something else.

And I do think that, positively, for everybody who is looking for the country`s kind of government to continue to function properly, there is no sense here on Capitol Hill that a shutdown is in the offing.

You`re correct that Chuck Schumer and Democrats on the Senate side have separated this out. They said today they`re very close to a major budget caps deal, is what we would refer to it here, that will set budget spending for the Defense Department and for domestic programs.

That`s a huge deal, and they have not yet come to an agreement on DACA. So it is significant that they are saying, OK, we can do this big thing without doing immigration. But the reality here --

TODD: But, Kasie, let me ask you this.

HUNT: Yes.

TODD: Why wouldn`t Democrats change their tune here if the President is sending the message to his base he`ll shut down if he doesn`t get the immigration deal he wants? Aren`t --

HUNT: Yes. I`m sorry, go ahead.

TODD: -- base Democrats going to say, come on, Democrats, grow a spine. The President is willing to shut down the government over this. Why aren`t you anymore?

HUNT: I think that may be the case, Chuck, but I think that what you`re seeing the President reflect and the lesson the Democrats learned was that, you know, frankly, the President came out better off politically after this weekend shut down. I don`t think Democrats felt like they came out better for what happened.

And I think the President has clearly absorbed that and is now willing -- I mean, he has completely flipped around this argument whereas Democrats were saying, you know, we need to help these kids, we`re willing to take a major stand to help them.

He is now saying, well, if Democrats are going to refuse to protect our borders, I think we should shut the whole thing down.

So at the end of the day, I don`t think this is going to have a material impact on whether or not they`re able to figure out whether the government shuts down this week or not.

TODD: Which basically means you`re saying Capitol Hill is treating the President like he`s just some political pundit that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

HUNT: We`ll see what John Kelly says behind closed doors when he comes up here. I think that, at this point, they take more seriously what happens in those meetings than what the President says in public.

TODD: That`s amazing.

HUNT: I mean, you remember, Chuck, that entire public meeting back and forth across the table.

TODD: Yes.

HUNT: Everybody thought they had a deal and then, you know, two days later, it falls completely apart. You`re right, it`s very hard to figure out exactly what is real anymore up here with the President.

TODD: All right, Kasie Hunt trying her best trying to figure this out. I guess Congress is going along. Anyway, thanks very much.

HUNT: Thanks, Chuck.

TODD: All right. So just to clarify, any shutdown would be Thursday night at midnight, not tomorrow.

Let me bring in tonight`s panel. Shane Harris, an intelligence and national security correspondent with "The Washington Post"; Alfonso Aguilar is the executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles; and Jennifer Palmieri, communications director for the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House.

All right. Shane, I think the most remarkable thing of what Kasie Hunt reported is that, really, the President strongly advocated for a shutdown on immigration and, you know, House Republicans are like, OK.

SHANE HARRIS, STAFF WRITER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Right, it seems --

TODD: We`re just going to keep -- they are now ignoring them. They`re like, eh, I`m sure it will change tomorrow so let`s ignore it.

HARRIS: Right, and I don`t feel -- I feel like this is not the first time that lawmakers have been ignoring him in this or trying to sort of silence him. I remember even Lindsey Graham coming out and saying, a few weeks ago, we don`t have a reliable negotiating partner in the White House.

I think Trump, in his mind, believes that the shutdown is sort of this threat that he can push out there to get his way and probably because he thinks that he won, which is, to Kasie`s point --

TODD: Right now, it`s like --

HARRIS: Yes. The last time was good for me.

TODD: -- he`s thinking, oh, shutdown is good for me.

HARRIS: Let`s do it again. This is a good thing, push that button again. Do over. But I don`t think he really understands how the stakes and the contours keep changing all the time in this town.

TODD: Alfonso, I mean, look, just politically, OK --

ALFONSO AGUILAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LATINO PARTNERSHIP FOR CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES: Right.

TODD: Look, this is -- people`s lives are at stake. They`re trying to figure this out. But just politically, it just seems -- it`s as if he`s not paying attention.

AGUILAR: Well, we`ve been saying this since he started running for office, right, that what he says affects his legislative agenda, getting support from Republicans and Democrats.

But I think this is the -- you know, how do you legislate and govern in the era of Trump? And I think the key to that is to -- you have to put aside whatever he says, whatever he tweets, and really focus on the policy proposals and what is said in meetings in private with his cabinet.

TODD: That John Kelly is a more effective messenger to Congress.

AGUILAR: I was --

TODD: You take his word over the President?

AGUILAR: I was at a meeting with John Kelly yesterday discussing immigration. They`re committed to the Dreamers. The President has proposed a path to citizenship, the 1.8 million individuals. They really care about that.

They`re really -- I understand the President is frustrated because the reality is the Democrats are not responding to his framework. Democrats continue to talk to the Republicans of choice -- McCain, Graham, Flake -- who really cannot sway the majority of the Republican caucus in the Senate.

I understand that frustration, but in terms of the shutdown, nobody in the White House wants a shutdown. We`ve actually finally detached the issue of the shutdown from immigration. We want that so we can really focus on immigration.

So at this point, I`d say let`s not pay attention to him and just really focus on the policy discussion. And I know it`s very difficult --

TODD: No --

AGUILAR: -- but for the good of the country. He has three years left.

TODD: But, Alfonso, everything you say, I -- you`re absolutely -- you`re making a very rational case here. But it is amazing to me that, basically, you`re saying and you`re advocating the same strategy that the House -- just don`t -- ignore the President for now. We`ll worry about him when we absolutely have to get him to sign a bill. That`s essentially what you`re saying.

JENNIFER PALMIERI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Yes.

AGUILAR: We have to magnanimous.

(LAUGHTER)

PALMIERI: Yes.

TODD: So the Democrats, I mean, I`m going to have a deeper discussion about this. I don`t know what you do here because there is --

PALMIERI: So --

TODD: There`s rough seas ahead no matter if you try to work with him or you don`t work with him.

PALMIERI: Well, I think that you can`t rely on his word so you have to know where your own -- like where your own ground is about what you`re really -- what you`re willing to give up and what you`re -- what you can live without.

And I think what the Democrats needed to prove in the first shutdown is they couldn`t live without DACA getting addressed in some way and that they are willing to shut the government down over that. So they have established that as a baseline.

I think the best that can come out of this, ultimately, you know, they`ll probably pass some sort of C.R. that gets us through a few weeks.

TODD: Sure.

PALMIERI: They`ll go -- next week, they`ll go back. They`ll try to pass some immigration bill so there will not be 60 votes for anything. There probably won`t be 218 votes for anything.

And eventually, we will get some kind of bridge that protects the Dreamers, protects DACA for at least another year, and that`s what Democrats had to have. And they needed a shutdown in order to get that baseline.

TODD: By the way, you talked about John Kelly being a reliable partner. John Kelly said something today about Dreamers that I`m guessing -- do we have any audio of that?

I`m going to play it here. This is what the Chief of Staff in a reference about those who had signed up for DACA and those who didn`t. Take a listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

KELLY: The difference between 690 and 1.8 million were people that some would say were too afraid to sign up, others would say were too lazy to get off their asses but they didn`t sign up.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

TODD: Words, word choices.

AGUILAR: While General Kelly, I think, is a great patriot, a great American, he is not politically correct. I can tell you that. But he actually cares. Yes, I don`t agree with that statement, but --

TODD: Would you say that most -- the people that didn`t sign up for DACA did it out of concern about giving the government their information?

AGUILAR: That`s part of it. I don`t think it was the main reason. I think some people just didn`t pay attention to it and just didn`t do it. I have a problem with the comment just saying that those who didn`t do it --

PALMIERI: Yes.

AGUILAR: -- didn`t do it is because they were lazy. But, you know, I will give them a pass.

PALMIERI: They went out of the way to make that an opaque process. It was very hard for people to understand what they needed to do in order to file again just like they made it an easy process for people. And I think whatever, you know, the -- it really betrays a lot about how they talk behind the scenes when you hear the White House Chief of Staff speak that way.

TODD: It`s not helpful because you combine that chain with the s-hole stuff, all this other --

HARRIS: Right.

TODD: -- where they`ve been trying to say, no, no, no, no, that was taken out of context.

HARRIS: It`s rough, it`s unsympathetic. And if what you`re trying to do right now is encourage these people to be part of this deal -- and as John Kelly said, don`t worry they won`t be a priority for deportation -- but then the President is saying what he is now saying and then Kelly is saying, you`re all lazy, would you come forward right now in this moment? I mean, I certainly wouldn`t if I were in that position.

AGUILAR: Well, you know, from my experience with Dreamers -- and, you know, we hear a lot about Dreamers and there`s the Dreamers that go to the Hill and make a lot of noise. I don`t know if they`re representative of the entire Dreamer community.

The majority of Dreamers are hardworking. They`re students. If you give them a path to legal status and a path to citizenship, they`ll be very happy and they`ll take that opportunity.

HARRIS: You have to believe it`s real though, too.

TODD: Sending the message overall, though, to the public that the President`s word can`t be trusted, I feel like, is being a flashing neon sign now when we have this argument about Mueller.

PALMIERI: Right.

TODD: Take a listen to people that are supportive of the President of the United States about the President speaking to Mueller. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRIS CHRISTIE, FORMER GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY: Robert Mueller is not someone to be trifled with, and he`s not someone who takes lightly the words of anybody who he is looking at. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS HOST: Should the President sit down with him face-to-face?

CHRISTIE: No.

ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: I actually don`t want him to testify because as a lawyer, I don`t want him caught in a got you moment where someone accuses him of lying where he may not remember something.

RUSH LIMBAUGH, HOST, "THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW": I wouldn`t let him get anywhere near this. Trump improvises as he goes. I just think it`s a rotten idea. I think this is a perjury trap. Even if Mueller is not setting it up as a perjury trap, it still is one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Should the President sit down with Mueller for an interview if he asks for one?

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R), IOWA: I would say that the President ought to listen to his lawyers on that point.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: Here we`re talking about, do you take the President seriously or literally, and we`re saying we don`t know any time to take his word for it. And the President`s own lawyers don`t trust him.

HARRIS: Right. I mean the --

TODD: I mean, to me, this puts an exclamation point on this issue.

HARRIS: Sure. And, look, the President is saying, I`m happy to sit down with him, can`t wait to do it, I`ll do it under oath, because he wants to seem like he has nothing to hide in this.

His lawyers may not think he has anything to hide, let`s be clear about that, but they are not going to let him sit down with Bob Mueller. And John Dowd, his chief lawyer, has already come out and said I will decide when my -- when the President sits down with Bob Mueller.

He may not be trying to set a perjury trap. He may just be trying to set the facts. But in Trump, you have a client who riffs and who improvs and will, perhaps, choke himself into some kind of trap.

TODD: I`m just disappointed that we`re all so comfortable just casually acknowledging, yes, our President can`t tell the truth.

PALMIERI: We`re talking about it.

AGUILAR: Right.

TODD: Yes, and that --

TODD: We`re not casually acknowledging it, you know.

AGUILAR: Right. Right.

TODD: No, but you know what I mean? Like it`s a -- but we`re like conditioned to it.

HARRIS: Yes.

PALMIERI: But it --

TODD: Like we`re having to govern around it.

PALMIERI: We are having to govern around it, going --

TODD: Like we`re governing around this issue.

AGUILAR: Right.

TODD: That he`s not a straight shooter.

PALMIERI: Yes. I mean, and the only question really is whatever -- now, because he can`t -- his words can`t be trusted is, what is the majority party in Congress going to do about it? I think in this, in the case of the Dreamers and in the case of the C.R., they`re going to ignore him. They`re going to make it work --

TODD: Well, Alfonso just laid out, like, look, you`ve got to --

PALMIERI: Yes, what they`re going to go --

TODD: You`ve learned --

PALMIERI: They`re going to go forward.

TODD: You`ve learned to --

PALMIERI: But with Mueller, what are they going to --

TODD: You have to believe in compartmentalizing.

PALMIERI: You know, where are they going to --

AGUILAR: Let`s accept this. I mean, Trump is a --

PALMIERI: -- where are they going to rise to the occasion then?

AGUILAR: -- is a completely different kind of politician. And I know it`s hard to accept that and that he`s going to say things that may not be truthful or they`re going to be offensive.

At the end, he survives if he is able to deliver in his policies and really make big changes for the American people. That`s a reality. People are frustrated with Washington.

HARRIS: Right.

AGUILAR: They`re so frustrated that they`re even willing to consider Donald Trump.

TODD: I know.

AGUILAR: If he delivers.

TODD: It`s all true. It`s all fair game here. All right, guys, our through the looking glass episode will continue here so stick around.

Up ahead, how far are Democrats willing to go to protect DACA? Will they risk another government shutdown over it? We`ll take a closer look at the Democratic Party`s dilemma. That`s coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TODD: Welcome back. How is this for an election strategy? If you don`t like the game, let`s change the rules. West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin unveiled a pledge today, urging his fellow senators to not campaign or fundraise against their sitting colleagues of either party.

Manchin`s message seems like a little more than a plea for Republican senators to avoid beating up on vulnerable Democrats. Vulnerable Democrats like, say, Joe Manchin of West Virginia. It

As "The Washington Post" put it, Manchin`s idea is being met mostly by sarcasm or silence. After all, it`s an election year.

Do you think leaders like McConnell and Schumer are going to sign a pledge like that? Not to mention in the age of #MeToo?

Do the American people really want U.S. senators pledging to protect every member of their little exclusive club? Seriously, guys. For so many reasons, this doesn`t strike me as a very good idea.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TODD: Welcome back. Democrats are dealing with a dilemma these days. What is the cost of doing business with the President and what`s the cost of not doing business with the President? And nowhere is that dilemma more stark than when it comes to immigration.

Can Democrats afford to have struck a deal and shut down the government over DACA? And can they afford not to? And what about the President`s new idea today, which is shut down the government if you don`t get a deal on immigration?

Well, joining me now is the Democratic Caucus Chair, Congressman Joe Crowley of New York.

And, Congressman Crowley, I had one idea when I was going to interview you earlier today about what our topic was going to be, but the President is talking shutdown. Let me get you to react to that.

REP. JOE CROWLEY (D-NY), CHAIRMAN, DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Well, I think this, you know, idea of a shutdown is really a Republican notion or idea. Democrats are for government. We believe in keeping the government open.

We know what a government shutdown does and who it hurts, and it hurts the people in this country. And we`re not about that.

TODD: So you regret -- so let me pause there. It was -- revising history, big mistake to shut down the government over DACA in hindsight?

CROWLEY: I think, Chuck, you have to remember also that five Republicans voted against that bill. They could not even get a simple majority to support that bill in the first place. But if the --

TODD: I understand but you get my drift.

CROWLEY: What I`m going to say to you, though, is if they want to pass a bill, a bipartisan bill with Democrats, it needs to incorporate Democratic principles, things that care about, things we are concerned about.

And that`s certainly the case here in the House. I can`t speak for the Senate. I can certainly speak for the House of Representatives. If they want our votes, they have to come to meet with us and give us the things that we`re looking for on that bill.

TODD: How many Democrats are voting on -- are going to end up voting for this House compromise tonight?

CROWLEY: Well, it remains to see what the compromise is. It remains to see what the text is and what it`s about. It`s hard to say at this point if there are any Democrats who support it.

They have the overwhelming majority in the House and the Senate. Certainly here in the House, if they want to pass the bill, they`ve done it before, they can do it on their own. If it doesn`t reflect the principles of our caucus, I think very little, if any, votes.

TODD: Right. But at what point do you have to -- I hear you on principles of your caucus, but you`re not in the majority. They do. It is a -- Marco Rubio has made this point. Hey, it`s a Republican White House, a Republican House, a Republican Senate. This immigration deal --

CROWLEY: Make a motion to do the budgets.

TODD: -- is going to come from a Republican point of view. Now, don`t you have to go a little bit further under those circumstances?

CROWLEY: Chuck, if they actually pass something. They have never put an immigration bill on the -- for the House of Representatives.

They may have done some magic in the Senate on occasion. In fact, they have passed a bill a number of years ago. Chuck Schumer led that effort.

TODD: Right.

CROWLEY: With John McCain. That bill was never taken up in the House of Representatives. I`ve been here for years and they have never taken up, not even a small bill, to address the issues of comprehensive immigration reform. Nothing has been done here in the House.

TODD: Well, given what the President said, he wants to reconnect the immigration with the funding bill, do you?

CROWLEY: Well, look, I think, at the end of the day, well, we`ve talked about a number of things that Democrats are concerned about including DISH payment, disproportionate share payments, community health centers, making sure that Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands get the funding, as well as Texas and Florida and California, that they need to get back up on their feet.

There are a number of things that Democrats consistently have been talking about.

And I`ll say this as well, Chuck, I think the issue of DACA is not just a moral issue, it`s an economics issue. It`s for the health of our nation. We are not a nation that can afford to shut down our borders right now to legal immigration.

TODD: Lindsey Graham who, obviously, has been involved in some of these compromises or attempts at a compromise, though many Republicans in the White House say, hey, you know, he doesn`t speak for a majority of Republicans.

CROWLEY: Right.

TODD: But he believes no deal is going to happen and that the best you can hope for is some sort of bridge, which is extending DACA legislatively rather than via executive order for a couple of years in exchange for some border security money. Is that where this is headed realistically?

CROWLEY: Well, I`m glad that someone`s thought about building bridges as opposed to building walls.

(LAUGHTER)

CROWLEY: But I do think it`s difficult to envision. I mean, why would we do a bill that lasts a year for DACA when we can do something more permanently? Why put these folks in more long-term limbo?

Many of these folks will fall out of status between now and a year from now. They won`t be able to work, maybe even attend school. So that`s not really addressing the issue.

TODD: But at what point is --

CROWLEY: When we need is the leaders` final decision.

TODD: -- is something better than nothing? I mean, there is --

CROWLEY: Well, look, I think that`s a --

TODD: There is a path that leads to nothing.

CROWLEY: Yes. That is, again, up to the Republicans to decide. I agree with Mr. Rubio -- with Senator Rubio.

They control the Senate, they control the House, and the presidency. It`s time for them to lead and to stop running the government from week to week or day -- or month to month and start passing real budget bills, more long- term year or more long-term bills -- and that`s not what`s happening right now -- and address the issues at hand, including DACA.

TODD: Would you like to see the House Republicans prove that they could -- the President has a plan.

CROWLEY: Yes.

TODD: Would you like to see if they could pass that on their own before you start negotiating with them? You know, this plan that he has of immigration, his four pillars, and see if they will vote on their own for that bill before you negotiate with them?

CROWLEY: Well, I think they always have the opportunity to do that. I think that it wouldn`t pass muster. I don`t think they would vote for it, and I think that sends a very loud message.

I would welcome that. You see, we`ve already suggested that they put the king of the hill or queen of the hill on the floor.

Put the Hurd-Aguilar Bill on the floor, put the President`s principles on the floor, put their -- any bill they want to put in on the floor and see which one passes.

And I think if that were the case, Hurd-Aguilar would be the king or the queen of the hill here in the House of Representatives.

TODD: How much pressure do feel from the Democratic base that doesn`t want to do business with Donald Trump but he is your president and he is the guy that has to sign a DACA bill?

CROWLEY: I think the issue with President Trump is that, every day, he distances himself further and further from wanting to work with us. He is -- you know, the whole speech last week was supposed to be about bipartisanship and bringing us closer together.

And you know, those speeches are written out. They`re preplanned. There was very little in that speech to bring us together. It just further drove us apart.

And I think that was the missed opportunity here for this president, someone who I think, every day, has indicated he has no interest in working with Democrats at all, quite frankly.

TODD: Does it, at all, give you -- does it help you work with Republicans that they`re sort of ignoring his shutdown call?

CROWLEY: I think there are a lot of things that disturb me about the lack of speaking up on Republican colleagues whether it`s on the issue of Russia and the investigation, their failure to push back on this memo and their failure to really Democrats to pass a budget that meets the needs of the American people as well as our defense.

It bothers me they haven`t done more even on the issue of immigration, something that 80 percent of the American people have said they`d like to see the issue of DACA and the Dreamers resolved. And they have failed so far to step up and meet those challenges.

TODD: What do you tell -- I`m going to go back. You sort of -- you`re avoiding this answer. What do you tell those in the base that don`t want you to work with him at all?

CROWLEY: Well, I think we have a responsibility as elected members of the House of Representatives to represent our districts and do it to the best interest of our constituents and to do what`s in the best internet of our nation.

I don`t believe in betting against America. I will never do that. You know, the stock market goes up, I`m happy. When the stock market goes down, that doesn`t make me happy. It makes me uncomfortable.

We have to stop -- you know, the President needs to stop, move away from blaming or not acknowledging the advancements of the last administration and start working and making and achieving goals for himself. And the Republicans, quite frankly, need to do the same thing.

If they were about actually moving ahead on legislation to help the American people, I think Democrats would step up and support that as well.

TODD: All right, Congressman Joe Crowley, a top member of the House Democratic leadership team. Thanks for coming on, sir, and sharing your views. Appreciate it.

CROWLEY: Thanks, Chuck. Always good to be with you. Thank you.

TODD: Up ahead, Wall Street with a severe case of stock shock. Could the market`s wild swings have consequences for President Trump? We`ll take a closer look at what`s really going on with my man, Jim Cramer, the biggest Eagles` fan in the world. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUCK TODD, MEET THE PRESS DAILY SHOW HOST, NBC: Well, welcome back. One more 2018 news today of the confirmation by non-denial variety, former Minnesota governor and former 2012 presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty today announced he is leaving his current gig running the financial services round table, a lobbying trade association for some of the biggest banks in hedge funds and Wall Street.

A former aide and long-time advisor tells NBC News he is considering a run for his old job as governor again. It comes after he ruled out a senate run last month, because question may be if Pawlenty wants to run, how much baggage will those White House ties create in this age of populism whether on the right or on the center or the left?

And speaking of Wall Street, the reason volatility teach President Trump, the lesson that other presidents have learned time and again, to be careful boasting about or bashing things that might be out of your control.

(START VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Bubbles. Bubbles aren`t pretty. We have had bubbles and when they burst it`s not a good thing.

Believe me, we`re in a bubble.

It`s only a recovery on Wall Street and that is because it`s a big, fat bubble that`s going to explode as soon as interest rates go up. It`s a big, fat, ugly bubble. You watch.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TODD: Welcome back to "MTP Daily." What goes up must come down and sometimes it goes back up again which is what happened today on Wall Street. We just showed you candidate Trump warning of a stock market bubble, stocks went up.

But since election day in 2016, President Trump hasn`t been shy about reminding Americans that wait, now I think stocks are a good thing when they go up. Take a listen.

(START VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The stock market has gained almost three trillion dollars in value since the election on November eight, a record.

We created now almost eight trillion dollars worth of value just in the stock market.

Stock market has reached an all-time high today. All-time high. Think of it. Nobody ever talks about it.

The stock market is smashing one record after another and has added more than seven trillion dollars in new wealth since my election.

You`re seeing what is happening with the stock market. People are appreciating what we`re doing.

We did in fact break 25,000 very substantially, break it very easily. So I guess our new number is 30,000.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: In fact, as Politico points out before the drop of the last week, the president boasted about stock market once every 35 hours. Folks, there`s a reason why most presidents don`t post about stock market gain. You live by the Dow, you die by the Dow. Touch the stove once, don`t touch it again. But he touches it a lot.

Anyway, President Trump just couldn`t help himself. He heard that the stove was hot and he kept touching it anyway.

Joining me now is Jim Cramer, host of "Mad Money" on CNBC. Hi, Jim. Break it down for me. Did this have anything to do with Washington, what we`ve been watching over the last two weeks?

JIM CRAMER, MAD MONEY HOST, CNBC: Yes. I think first of all that we are in a position where we found a little bit higher inflation. We had wage increase number last Friday that was too hot. We got a Federal Reserve that wants to tighten, doesn`t want to fall behind the curve so to speak.

And we got Washington throwing so much money basically at companies that the stocks will move up to level where a lot of the CEOs tell me, wow, Jim, explain to me why my stock is so high. We`re not doing that well. We`re doing well, but please.

So you got that kind of dichotomy in Washington really helping and then part of Washington not helping and part of Washington not helping is what really sent things down this week.

TODD: Does -- was the president obviously, I think he found out politically how you can get burned if you tie yourself to the stock market, because what you just explained is, the economic indicators are so good, the stock market had to sell off.

And of course during the recession, there would be days where the economic news are so bad, the stock market had to make huge gain, right? The markets aren`t tied to the economic well-being of the country any more, fair?

CRAMER: Very true. It can be very counterintuitive. In fact, right now good news showing that things are even better. Well, just turn into bad news, Wall Street, because they will say Federal Reserve has to tight even harder. It`s something the president not include in his calculus in part because we were really in the midst of what I regarded as being could be a pretty aggressive tightening cycle.

TODD: Let me ask you this. What would a government shutdown do? What are the things that markets are going to pay attention to? They`re playing with a little bit of Russian roulette with the shutdown of the government.

We got that debt ceiling thing coming up. We always know how Wall Street hates and Washington place roulette with that. And then there is the debt issue. Of those three issues, what could have the biggest impact on the market?

CRAMER: We really hate any debt ceiling issue which makes it so that the government would even seem for a second it would default. That`s the one to watch. We had declines about a government shutdown, but really nothing serious, they were buying opportunities.

One thing I would point out, we got a new Federal Reserve chairman. I think Jerome Powell is terrific. But I got to tell you, Chuck, I mean, this is really not a great hand that he just got dealt. TODD: What you`re saying is because he got to start tightening the stick a little bit. You can`t keep throwing free money out there?

CRAMER: Exactly, and that`s really countering what the president might want but it`s kind of natural. I mean, we got to get back to a world of higher interest rates and Jerome Powell is going to take us there.

TODD: Right.

CRAMER: And that is certainly going to be the Nielsen ratings you want if you`re the president.

(LAUGHTER)

TODD: And final question is, what about our debt issue? In the 90s, you had essentially Bill Clinton got talked into deficit reduction as a stock market stimulus by Rubin and the gang back in the day.

CRAMER: Right.

TODD: Is there -- the federal government money collection ability is shrinking by the hour, thanks to this new tax deal. Is there a point where Wall Street doesn`t like all the debt this country is taking on?

CRAMER: Not until we see interest rates dramatically higher. Wall Street right now still believes -- listen, the 10-year treasury is very low. We haven`t seen the impact. I wish the government sold this big bond (INAUDIBLE) Federal Reserve. But, no, not yet, Chuck, not yet. Not until we see more news rates much higher. Not until we see the Federal Reserve doing say maybe five, six hikes from now.

TODD: Yes.

CRAMER: That`s what they live and die by as the Federal Reserve. Not so much the size of the debt.

TODD: And finally, are we going to have Eagles rally on the market? Because I remember back in the day, if the NFC won the Super Bowl, the market was going up for the year. And I know it`s your eagle, so I just thought I would give you (INAUDIBLE) eagle.

CRAMER: Let`s put it this way. I think you have to go to Atlanta next year, win the Super Bowl, have two year in a row, before I will believe that we can have that kind of rally related to the Eagles.

TODD: Yes.

CRAMER: But you know what? As Carson Wentz says, get used to it.

TODD: All right. Jim Cramer, you will become an inseparable fan if they keep winning like this.

CRAMER: Totally.

TODD: It`s more fun when there is a little tragedy in your voice.

CRAMER: I haven`t had anything since 1960, come on.

(LAUGHTER)

TODD: I`m teasing. Jim Cramer, as always, go make a TV show. You got to do one in a few minutes.

CRAMER: Thank you.

TODD: Thank you, sir. Up ahead, did you catch these Democrats at last week`s state of the union? Whether you agree with them or not, what they`re doing is definitely not treason. That`s what I`m obsessed with tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TODD: Tonight, I`m obsessed with treason, actual treason, not when your political opponent doesn`t agree with you treason, not when your political opponent doesn`t do something you don`t like treason, and not when your political opponent doesn`t shower you with applause like treason.

I`m talking about actual treason. The dictionary defines treason as the crime of betraying one`s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereignty or overthrow the government.

The constitution says treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering o their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

According to the U.S. code, treason can be punishable by death. Yes, death. Treason is a capital crime. It`s not just the word you should just toss around loosely at campaign rallies. That`s exactly what`s happening.

(START VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR (voice over): Those are the types of leaks that are so treasonous that 150 years ago people would have actually been hung for those types of leaks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It could rise to a level of espionage and treason.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You may see a series of contacts that may rise to the level of treason.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is moving into perjury false statements and even potentially treason.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They should be locked up for treason.

TRUMP: Can we call that treason? Why not. I mean, they certainly didn`t seem to love our country very much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: I`m sure most of you watched some of those and said, wait a minute, I do belief X is treason. The point is, that kind of dialogue has been destructive. We should not shrug our shoulders and dismiss the overuse and the misuse of the word treason.

Even if we can`t take what the president says seriously or literally, we still have to take ourselves seriously and literally. And treason is not a word that should be mainstream. We should like to see a political party might actually try to take the word back. We`ll be right back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: Welcome back. Time for "The Lid." Our panel is back. Shane Harris, Alfonso Aguilar, Jennifer Palmieri. Before I want to actually get -- believe or not, there is 2020 news, but before we get there, this treason business, you know, the president constant joking, but it doesn`t help. It doesn`t help and it is just putting us down. Because what happens is everybody says oh yes, here is real treason. It`s a downward --

SHANE HARRIS, SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY WRITER, THE WASHINGTON POST: This is also not the first time he said this. I mean, he has called the FBI agent who got caught up in these text messages as part of the Mueller investigation. He said he`s -- he called him a traitor too.

This is the chief law enforcement of the United States, levying in extremely serious charge, as you just pointed out, against people who are probably not --

TODD: Capital punishment. He is basically saying, you`re worthy of the death penalty.

HARRIS: Yes.

ALFONSO AGUILAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LATINO PARTNERSHIP FOR CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES: This is a take him literally and take that seriously. It`s not a word to be used loosely. Republicans were not treasonous when they didn`t stand up to applaud Barack Obama, you know. So, yes, it`s out of order.

TODD: It is just getting uglier and uglier. All right, I got to ask you about running for president in 2018. There is TV ad up in Iowa. Let me play you an excerpt from a man -- a member of Congress.

JENNIFER PALMIERI, FORMER CLINTON CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: I don`t know it was possible you could start running for president in 2018. This is great news.

TODD: Apparently you can. And apparently you can start running advertising. This ad has been running in Iowa.

(START VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): Most Iowans understand the concept of starting early. After all, there`s an awful lot of work to be done. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do we bring our country together? How do we begin to heal a fractured nation?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): The work starts now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: Look, John Delaney, a member of Congress, somebody who many Democrats thought, he`s going to be a great rising star (INAUDIBLE) run for governor. The U.S. Senate says ah, forget it, I`m running for president.

PALMIERI: Apparently anyone can be president. TODD: Well, and I to think this is a Trump effect, right?

PALMIERI: Right.

TODD: Where you have somebody generally a very successful businessman. Wait a minute, I actually have a pretty good business resume, why not me?

PALMIERI: Yes, there`s literally --

TODD: There`s a lot of why not mes.

PALMIERI: Yes, because it`s very hard when Donald Trump is the president for to tell someone that it`s crazy for them to think that they can -- that the can run. So, I think we`re going to have a very big field. I think we have a really talented field. TODD: I think a lot of Republicans thought that their field was really talented, but the guy that they thought was the least talented --

PALMIERI: They won.

TODD: -- ended up with the nomination. AGUILAR: I`ll say something about Delaney, he was my congressman for some time.

TODD: So you know him?

AGUILAR: Well, you know, he is starting early on because people really don`t know who he is. But what`s interesting about Delaney, he is a moderate Democrat. And this is very important. In a field where we are seeing a lot of democratic candidates who aren`t really to the left or to the extreme left. Delaney I think is a kind of candidate that could be attractive to working Americans.

TODD: Look, Alfonso, you bring up an important point here. I am curious to see, there`s only so many people who can target the progressive base. Somebody has to run as the centrist?

HARRIS: (INAUDIBLE)

TODD: You know, Michael Bloomberg, I think -- look, John Kasich did it. (INAUDIBLE) will try to run as the centrist.

(CROSSTALK)

PALMIERI: -- party is going to want somebody who is going -- who ultimately is going to want somebody who can not to say unite the party but unite the country. I think by the time we get to 2019 --

TODD: You think that --

PALMIERI: That is what my party is going to be --

TODD: Somebody who --

PALMIERI: I don`t believe that person is John Delaney, but I do think that --

TODD: His mindset?

PALMIERI: -- I think that we are going to -- you know, there is -- you know, I think if Senator Sanders runs, he`s going to have a lot of support and he may even have a plurality early on. But I think as the time -- as time goes on, you know, Clinton won the democratic primary by a lot, right?

TODD: Really?

PALMIERI: And I think that the energy in her party and ultimately the bigger votes are going to be with somebody who`s going to unite people.

AGUILAR: I keep mentioning Joe Biden. Biden is somebody who is charismatic. He engages working Americans. And I thin he is interested -- TODD: You`re thinking the swing districts. The question is in a primary, can a Joe Biden get through? Joe Biden might be able to, but Joe Biden`s record couldn`t without Joe Biden`s charisma.

HARRIS: Right, that`s true. He`s tried before. Never been a different time with Joe Biden.

TODD: Different. He has never been a former vice president running.

HARRIS: The question is, will they be running against Donald Trump in 2020? I don`t think it`s a forgotten conclusion that he`s the nominee or even runs again.

TODD: But as I say, John Delaney is not the only who is saying yes, I`m running, and I`ll even run ads to prove it. Julian Castro said I have every interest in running. We put this up. He said this. Part of the process of figuring out whether I`m going to run is going to listen to folks and feel the temperature.

PALMIERI: Yes.

TODD: Again, I go back to he`s figuring why not?

PALMIERI: He`s figuring why not --

TODD: And why not say it publicly?

PALMIERI: Why not say it publicly, and also why not take it seriously, right? I think before you would say, my gosh, really it`s three years out - -

TODD: Early, right.

PALMIERI: It seems too early. But if running for president of the United States is a big deal, I would like to think that people put a lot of time and thought into it. TODD: Does this put pressure? What I wonder is does this put pressure on like the sort of the candidates we all expect to run?

PALMIERI: I don`t think --

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: They can announce when they`re going to run when they`re ready to announce it. And you lose nothing by announcing like Castro. I mean, you can throw your hat.

PALMIERI: I mean, the V.P., you know, Biden almost announced in October of 2015, very late. And that was going to be -- yes, he is going to be behind but that was going to be --

AGUILAR: It`s very early. I think it`s important for Castro to ensure that people are talking about him. That`s it.

TODD: And look, there isn`t a major Hispanic candidate yet, and I think some people thought Luis Gutierrez wanted to be that. I don`t know.

AGUILAR: Not going to happen.

TODD: But Julian Castro has been somebody your party has talked about for some time.

PALMIERI: Sure. It`s always, you know, talked about (INAUDIBLE) as well.

TODD: Final quick comment, I want to make the Pennsylvania special election. It`s complicated by a lot of things, but there is a major new effort to tie Pelosi to the democratic nominee, even though he said he wouldn`t support her for leader again.

If this works this time, Jennifer Palmieri, and Democrats lose the special and thought of because of Pelosi, does that increase Democrats` frustration with her and try to convince her not to run again?

PALMIERI: I don`t think think that`s the situation we`re going to be facing.

TODD: OK.

PALMIERI: I think --

TODD: At some point, is there a critical --

PALMIERI: I don`t think there`s going to be before an `18. I don`t think that is what we`re going to be facing. Shane?

HARRIS: You`re an expert.

TODD: (INAUDIBLE) all right on Jennifer`s comment there. All right, guys, Shane, Alfonso, Jennifer, thank you very much. Up ahead, just a mannequin in a convertible on a rocket to space. Nothing to see here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): Three, two, one. TODD: I`m a huge space geek, so I love this stuff. But SpaceX just launched it`s Falcon Heavy rocket. Destination? Mars. And today`s launched has been called the most significant moment for space travel since the first space shuttle took off.

That`s pretty interesting. But what Elon Musk put on that rocket is almost dis-interesting. Riding on board the Falcon Heavy is this cherry red Tesla Roadster. It`s quite a gift to the Marsians. And the most literal example of vertical integration we ever heard of.

Also there is a dummy wearing a space suit designed by SpaceX, because you know, you need a driver for that sweet, sweet, roadster. But, by the way, imagine, these are live photos you`re seeing of the roadster right now. They`re not riding into space in total silence. Why would yo do that when you can have David Bowie`s "Life on Mars" playing over the stereo on repeat.

TODD: And here`s --

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END

Copy: Content and programming copyright 2018 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.