party's in power and we look forward to working with whomever taiwan voters elect. the u.s. china one china policy as you know will continue to be guided by the taiwan's relation act, the three joint communiques and the six assurances. >> thank you, general. so you have been addressing the campaign against isis in iraq. it seems the pentagon has concerns about maybe the reemergence of isis. how do you assess the threat of isis today in iraq? >> it's really interesting having watched this over time. so, you know, isis in iraq and syria has been largely suppressed. i think it's one of those things though that you have to keep after, obviously. you know, one of the major challenges of course is the detention facility. which of course you know we continue to work with coalition

and countries around the world to address that. post counterisis campaign you know, the active operations when isis was defeated essentially in syria, what we've seen is isis essentially look to -- >> we have been watching a news conference at the pentagon regarding defense secretary lloyd austin. the pentagon said moments ago the defense secretary has been diagnosed with prostate cancer and that was the surgery he had in december and it was why he was back in the hospital for complications late december into the new year. they're explaining why there was a breakdown in communication. why the white house was not informed. saying repeatedly that they have to do better. joining us now from outside the white house is aaron gillcrist. in talking about breakdown and the timeline he have we can put up on the screen e timeline of when he was in the .

when he started eing complication when he went back into the ital. january 4th is when they told the white house he was inhe for severe pain.ary 1st. multiple days befor the white house was told about this. also happening on janry 4th and i'd like to a time for when the whiteas informed because at noon local time, there was a strike in background conducted by the u.s. mr. biden and austin approved the strike before he was hospitalized, but still, the strike could have been happening while the defense secretary was in the hospital and the white house did not know about it. >> you're right. the, jake sullivan in one of his briefings with president biden on thursday, january 4th, informed the president that austin was in the hospital.

that's when we, the next day obviously is when we learned about the fact he was in the hospital and had transferred authority to his deputy. it's reasonable to assume that the deputy secretary of defense would have been a part of conversations along with the chairman of the joint chiefs and other members of the national security staff. the president's national security team. about whatever level of approval needed to happen from that high up in terms of a strike happening overseas and so it's reasonable to believe that the secretary was not actively involved in that conversation but that there were others in the pentagon apparatus as well as in the national security apparatus that would have been able to be informed in a part of that informing the president in making that decision. >> i assume that everybody would want to know what the status of the defense secretary was if something were to go wrong. let me ask you about what we have got from the white house. this is from monica alba getting

this memo from jeff, the white house chief of staff talking about the notification process putting it in writing that cabinet agencies, when there is something wrong, when somebody might have to transfer power, when a transfer of power is even being considered or will potentially be considered, there is a process that should take place. i'm a little surprised they got to put it in writing now. >> i was, too, to be honest with you. we were asking yesterday and today about what level of policy there was around this idea of notification. yesterday during a press gaggle on air force one, the spokesman for the national security council said there was an expectation that secretaries would notify the white house about something like a hospitalization and so the question in my mind was does expectation equal policy. is there something written? and so now we've got this memo that nbc news has obtained from the white house chief of staff, the person for whom the

president one of the few people that reports directly to the president. but is the person through whom all the others who report rectly to the president would lily have to go. this memo saying that the white house is conducting a review of agency protocols for the delegation of authority from cabinet members. the memo goes on to say that they want these agencies to submit their current protocols and to make sure they update them for delegation of authority to include notification of the white house chief of staff. and so that's the key here that the chief of staff now is saying make sure that if there is a delegation of authority or if there's one that is coming, that that information is conveyed directly to the white house chief to have staff as well as several others inside the white house. inside the situation room and inside these different agency's operations centers.

the agencies were given a deadline of friday to make sure they submit these protocols and any updates that need to go with them to the white house to the office of the cabinet secretary. excuse me, the office of cabinet affairs as well as to the white house chief to have staff. this is the action that's coming now in light of obviously the reality around this information not having been conveyed to the national security adviser, to the national security council and to biden as it relates to secretary austin. >> we do wish him well. prostate cancer can be very serious. the president says he has no plans of relieving the secretary of his duties. aaron, thank you very much. good to be with you. i'm katy tur. it is currently 3:05 and when a president takes the oath of office, they swear to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. one of if not the key component of that constitution is free and

fair elections. and whap keeps those working and our democracy functioning as it has for 250 years is the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next. the peaceful handover has always happened. in time of war, in times of crisis, in times of deep division. this is january 6th, 2021. donald trump and his supporters tried to stop the certification of the election results because he lost, repeatedly claiming fraud even though no evidence uz ever produced. now, three years later, donald trump is being tried for attempting to overturn that election. it is a criminal case. one that senator mitch mcconnell said would be justified when he explained why he voted not to convict president trump who by that time was out of office saying quote, trump is

practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of january 6th. we have a criminal justice system, he says, in this country. we have civil litigation and former presidents are not immune. but now trump's legal team is arguing he is immune. saying a president's actions while in office are above the law. that a presint can do anything, any official act, even assassinate a political rival. >> can president order seal team six to assassinate a political ral? >> he would have to be and speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution. >> but if he weren't, there uld be no criminal prosecution, no crimina liability for that? i've sies of hypotheticals about criminal tions that could be taken a presiden and could be

considered official acts i've asked you would such a president bect to criminal ecution ihe's not impeached and your answer is no. >> i believe i said qualified yes. if he's imached and convicted first. >> so he's not peached or convicted. put that aside. you're saying a president could sell pardons, sell military secrets, could order seal team six to assassinate a political rival. >> strikes as something that might not be held to be an official act. the sale of pardons has come up and hasn't been pseted. >> i think it'sox cal to say that his constitutional duty to take care of the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws. >> joining us now, ken dilanian. so those were some very skeptical judges.

>> that's right. i think you plays what was the biggest highlight of the hearing which was when the judge forced mr. trump's attorney to confront the full implication of his immunity argument saying that a president can literally get away with murder unless congress first impeaches him. the hearing also underscored that this larger question of how criminal law applies to presidents has never really been decided. you know, it was assumed that nixon was going to be indicted for watergate crimes after he left office which is why ford pardoned him, but could a president be charged with ordering a military strike? even the special counsel's office today suggested the answer to that was probably not. so to me, the most interesting question out of this hearing is whether the appeals court or later the supreme court on appeal, will feel compelled to write a new doctrine on the limits of presidential immunity or whether the judges can find a way to sidestep that issue by ruling what president trump did in trying to overturn the

election did not amtd to official act. >> let me ask you about new nbc news exclusive reporting about what's going on with jack smith's home. allegations or news that he's been a victim of swatting? explain what that is. >> i will and i should add that the judge in mr. trump's election case, judge chutkan, was also swatted. for those unfamiliar with the term, swatting is when someone calls in a bogus report of an emergency with the intention of having police, sometimes heavily armed s.w.a.t. units, rush into somebody's house, often with guns drawn. that can be a traumatic and dangerous situation. in the case of jack smith, law enforcement tell us that christmas day swatting was unsuccessful. smith is protected by federal marshals and the police notified that security detail as they were on the way to his house, they were able to check out the situation, determine it was a

hoax call before the police arrived. these underscore the types of threats and harassment that are involved in the case of donald trump. >> threats being sent in to election headquarters all around the country. it is a hairy time. ken, thank you very much. joining us now, laura jarrett and lisa rubin, my favorite women to discuss this with. it is remarkable to have this issue of immunity be argued in front after court. appellate court deciding something that never has been before because every time a president has gotten in trouble for something, they have resigned and with nixon, he was pardon. the issue has never come up. >> it's never come up. special counsel would say the reason is no one has ever done what he's been accused of having done. we should mention his own

lawyers way back when in our sort of memory during his senate impeachment trial sort of made the point there's a criminal process for this and that's the way to solve this. this is not, shouldn't be decided through impeachment. this should be decided in the court of law and now here we are today and it was sort of bizarre listening to his lawyers. it shows you the shifting landscape we now find ourselves in. >> so this is interesting because you have as you mentioned, the lawyer during the impeachment trial saying this is not the venue for this. he can be prosecuted in criminal court. you had mcconnell saying i'm not going to convict him and the reason is we don't have jurisdiction any longer. he's not president and yes, he's responsible for what happened on january 6th but that is for the courts to deal with and they will deal with it. mitch mcconnell saying this. and now today, you have this lawyer saying no, go back to the institution. it's the impeachment judgment clause which says that the only

authority over a president's actions is congress. explain the impeachment judgment clause. >> it was put into the constitution to set out what the remedies are if a person is impeached then convicted and the concern on behalf of the framers was making sure that our country couldn't do what british parliament had done, which was to jail people after they had been impeached. that the remedies would be limited to removal and disqualification. >> because congress is political in its nature. >> correct. and it was non prosecutorial and non criminal. they said here's the list of things you can do and that person can never the less be tried in a court of law. that doesn't say anywhere that

that a person who hasn't been impeached and convicted can be tried. not as a constraint with the department of justice or executive branch. >> we're having these great law school debates about this. this was an effort to delay things and to the extent that was the strategy, it's working. he's taken himself off the campaign trial. voluntarily i might add, to appear in a courtroom for the better part of two hours today for a reason. this is interesting and meaningful but strategically it's played to his advantage. it's on pause. essentially, there's no more jurisdiction with judge kin because of this. >> when do we expect them to come back with a ruling and tell me what will happen next. >> jack smith has said he'd like

a ruling in about five days. but to your point, how fast will this move? it depends on the ruling. the worst case scenario if you're jack smith they come back with a ruling that says a president is immune for their official actions and we're going to send it back to the judge for the some fact finding on whether the acts alleged are official or not because that not only has delayed the process -- >> does it go to trial to argue whether it's an official act? >> no, it would be a jurisdictional discovery or there would be a series of rulings about what evidence could or could not come into the trial based on whether or not it related to official action. >> is that something the supreme court could do? could they say we're not sure as

a way for them not to get involved? >> they could but i think it's more likely that if the d.c. circuit, which heard it today, doesn't go down that road and just says flat out he's not immune from prosecution, then the real question is whether the supreme court wants to wade in that at all. they can decide not to hear the case and everything is unfrozen if you will. even if the court came back and says game back on, he could then take it which means to go to the full d.c. circuit. that could take a while. even if they said no, he loses in two days from now. this takes a while. >> the judges to go to the full circuit to dtsds this with us to

avoid that second delay tactic. am i wrong? >> there's no shortage of legal maneuvers but i believe if he loses in front of this panel, it is his right to take it. i believe it is his right to take it on bond and try to get the full d.c. circuit. >> on bong? >> on bunk. >> bunk. >> you learn a whole new language when you go to law school. that's why i say the full d.c. circuit but the very fact we're talking about the clause shows the desperation. laura is right that politically, this is all about delay. legally, they have so few options that we are all learning a new vocabulary as he sermgs for text in the constitution that has never been litigated

before. >> let me play one sound bite from the -- talking about if it's ruled that the president doesn't enjoy immunity, the flood gates will open. >> we were in a situation where we have prosecution of a chief.

>> and this is where you see the difference between his political or actual threats converge with legal argument. just because he says he's going to do something does not make it predictive in the general world outside of him and what he's trying to do is sort of trans mute the things he intends to do into some larger argument about what's going to happen. i don't think anybody thinks but for him those flood gates will open. is it a reasonable fear though that if he is returned to the oval office, he will use the department of justice? absolutely. >> can he? is it effective to try to use the doj? are there people that do the bidding that way? >> there are. you could say bill barr was one of those people until he was not. were there people in the department of justice who did? we have multiple resignations from prosecutors on up. people like jeff berman

preventing him from doing things he wanted to do. >> ladies, thank you very much and coming up, what the former president's political team is telling voters about his time off the campaign trail today and when the supreme court gets the immunity case, what are they likely to do? a former watergate prosecutors joins us. plus, what the idf just admitted to doing that is raising new fears of a widening war once again. we are back in 60 seconds. idenie again. we are back in 60 seconds. the towel washed with downy is softer, and gentler on your skin. try downy free & gentle. he hits his mark —center stage—and is crushed by a baby grand piano. you're replacing me? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

have you ever wondered what an icon,... ...a legend,... ...a legacy,... ...a pop star,... ...and a tight end all have in common? they all got this season's updated covid-19 shot to help better protect them against recent variants. got it? ( ♪♪ ) got yours? donald trump is in washington today defending his claims of presidential immunity but the campaign is in iowa. joining me from des moines is vaughn hillyard. we had laura saying this was all delay. it was voluntary for him to be

in the courtroom today. that this is all a maneuver. how does this work for him politically? how is he trying to use it? >> right. voluntary, voluntary, voluntary, despite what donald trump suggests. i was talking to a trump senior campaign aide about the decision to go to the courthouse today and to lower manhattan on thursday for the new york civil fraud trial closing arguments. i asked why the calculation to go to the trial instead of being here campaigning in the state of iowa and that aide responded quote, we are not going to give joe biden any free shots on goal. we are going to fight back. in the form of fighting back included donald trump after that hearing here today going inside of that hotel room there and tracing the cameras. he did not answer any questions. but you know, there's only two days of hearings this week. last week, eric trump was here campaigning on behalf of his father and from the campaign stage, he clicked on his phone and he called his dad who he told the crowd was having dinner

at mar-a-lago and it's not like you know, others have not had issues before. four years ago, there were democratic senators taking part in the impeachment trial of donald trump and they made their way back. one of the democratic senators flew for a rally after one of the hearings that day and then over the course of the weekend. so senators would come back and hit the ground for about 48 hours and so for donald trump, trials only take you too far. it's a concerted decision that he has made to not campaign here, but frankly right now, his polling numbers look pretty good and he may not need to be here. >> vaughn, i will let you get warm. it looks horrible there. thanks. coming up, what secretary blinken wants from israel. first though, what a prosecutor thinks about donald trump's immunity case. prosecutor thinks about donald trump's immunity case. yup, that's how you business differently.

♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪♪ ) constant contact's advanced automation lets you send the right message at the right time, every time. ( ♪♪ ) constant contact. helping the small stand tall.

i think he's having a midlife crisis consti'm not.act. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is.

john kirby has joined the white house briefing today. he's being asked about defense secretary lloyd austin. he says the president was informed about the hospitalization on friday, january 5th, but the president didn't know that it was cancer until this morning. let's listen a little bit to what he is telling reporters right now. >> president biden learn of the defense secretary's cancer diagnosis? >> today.

>> any details on how, what his reaction was? >> he was informed by the chief of staff earlier this morning. i'm not going to go into any more detail on that. >> so, the president has known for i guess five days now that secretary austin was in the hospital but he wasn't informed why? >> he was not informed until last friday that secretary austin was in the hospital. he was not informed until this morning that the root cause of that hospitalization was prostate cancer. >> is that because the white house knew and didn't inform the president or because secretary austin chose not to share that with the president? >> nobody at the white house knew that secretary austin had prostate cancer until this morning and the president was informed immediately after. >> okay. last week, we learned that jake

sullivan i believe found out about the fact that secretary austin was hospitalized on thursday morning. so just want to clarify. are you saying the president found out a day later? >> jake was informed that secretary austin was in the hospital and had been for some time. he found out late thursday afternoon. and he informed he and the chief of staff informed the president later this evening, early that evening. not long after they learned, they informed the president directly. thursday evening. >> we learned also today that secretary austin when he went into the hospital for the first time on december 22nd, he knew he was going to be under general anesthesia, spending the night, and transferred authority to his deputy secretary. was the white house informed then that the authority was

going to be transferred? >> no. >> is that supposed to happen? >> there are, the delegations of authority can happen i wouldn't say on a regular basis, but it's not uncommon for the secretary of defense to delegate sometimes for very short periods of time. but i think one of the things we're all going to want to learn from this is the notification process for that delegation of authority. >> is there an expectation when a secretary is indisposed or hospitalized and has to transfer authority that the white house would be notified? >> i'm going to get carine take this one. >> so -- >> yeah, again, there's a memo from the chief of staff of the white house laying out exactly what should happen when any cabinet level official or high level official needs to go to the hospital and there might even potentially be a transfer

of power. a memo that says here's who you're supposed to tell and that does include the white house. john kirby is a particularly interesting position because he used to be the spokesperson for the pentagon so he has some knowledge of the inner workings there. he is now the spokesperson for the national security council. again, president biden was told multiple days after he was in the hospital. defense secretary austin was in the hospital that he was there. but he wasn't told until today, five days later, that he had cancer. nobody at the white house knew about the cancer diagnosis until today. according to john kirby. and going back to our top story, whatever the decision from the d.c. appellate court the presidential immunity issue is likely to go to the supreme court. when it does, what precedent will they consider? joining us now, former prosecutor, john sail. he was an assistant prosecutor on the watergate case.

also, mark joseph stern. mark, when this goes to the supreme court, which it is very likely to do, what do you think from your educated reporting on the supreme court, will happen next? >> i think that the supreme court will reject trump's claim of absolute immunity by a lopsided vote with most if not all of his three appointees joining the majority and holding that the constitution does not grant trump some kind of total shield against criminal prosecution for acts that he took while in office if those are criminal under the law. i know that's a bold prediction. this is certainly a far right court that has delivered a lot of policy wins for the donald trump in the past, but here, i think the court will draw the line and reject this argument out of hand. >> do you think they're going to do it quickly? is this an easy one to take up and dismiss? >> so that's the much bigger

question. if they drag their feet, even if they say no to trump, they could put off the trial until after the election which would give trump the chance to win and perhaps try to pardon himself. i think the -- will attempt to act with some haste. i think not immediately will a decision come down after arguments but i to think that the court will put this on the rocket docket. hold arguments pretty quickly and try to come down with a decision within the month or two of those arguments. that could still allow time for a trial in may or june, but a tight timeline. >> john, you have some understanding of the precedent they might consider here. walk us through the nixon case and watergate and how this might weigh on the justices. >> yeah. okay, in the nixon case, the support acted very quickly, but i disagree a little bit mark.

i think the supreme court is going to deny cert. i don't think they're going to take it. the supreme court bit off a big bite of the apple by agreeing to take the case from the colorado supreme court involving whether or not trump could be on the ballot. i think that the d.c. court of appeals here will reject easily, will reject the claim that there's total immunity. so richard nixon, when he resigned, there was a period of time when my boss when i was a very young lawyer was considering whether or not to prosecute him. that was taken off the table by president ford pardoning him and president nixon accepted the pardon. so if he was immune from being prosecuted, there was no pardon for him to accept. recently, it was held by this supreme court that the president is not immune from even a local subpoena for his financial

records. let me go back quickly to the watergate experience. there was a grand jury subpoena issued for white house tapes and this very d.c. court of appeals weighed because everything in laws are balancing. weighed executive privilege and they said that can be very legitimate. but in this case, it gives way to violations of criminal law and the d.c. court of appeals had two sentences. i hesitate to read. let me read you two sentences from this very court. they said that sovereignty remains at all times with the people. they do not forfeit through elections the right to have the law construed against and applied to every citizen. they were saying president nixon was not above the law. the claim of immunity is based upon a premise that there's a very strong executive. well that's right. but there's also a very strong congress and a very strong

judiciary. and we have separation of powers and 248 years ago, we decided we do not have a king. we told that to king george and the only king as far as i'm concerned is lebron. there is no king. the president is not above the law. i don't think the delay is going to work. what i think is going to happen is i think the mandate when this comes down, they very well might say that we are vacating the stay and this case is going back to judge chutkan and then the trump team can ask the full d.c. court to reinstate the stay or they can ask the supreme court. and i think because the supreme court does not want to be political, they're going to reject this case. and if i may one other thing, the trump tactic of vailed threat ifs you want to call it that to the court will backfire. donald trump himself said well, i appointed some very smart

justices and you know, i hope that they're fair. then one of his lawyers went on another network and said something like president trump fought like hell to get brett kavanaugh confirmed and i sure hope he remembers that. those justice, that's going to backfire as the chief justice said, there are no trump justices. there are no obama justices. when we put on that robe, we're justices and i think that they're going to try and stay out of a political hot potato. >> this presupposes that the d.c. appellate court says that the president is not immune. it presupposes jack smith wins right now and donald trump appeals it to the supreme court. you're talking about the precedent that they might rely on john this court though has also not exactly had a big fealty to precedent in the past. why do you think that the precedence of nixon and

watergate and the tapes and immunity is going to hold when say roe v. wade's precedent did not hold? >> the d.c. circuit, which has this case, i think has an easy question. total immunity is absurd. for reasons that some of your prior guests have said. there's crazy examples but that would give the president license to do anything he wanted. have, tell the fbi director to plant evidence or tell the head of the joint chief of staffs to kill one of his political rivals. i think there's some legitimate immunity and the case will go back to the trial court. the court will work out the details of immunity and ultimately, if trump is convicted, all of that can be reviewed on appeal, but i just don't think it's going to be reviewed now. interestingly, some of the justices and their questions,

they seem to question whether it would properly befall a court at this time. so i just think the absolute immunity claim has no legs. >> that was brought up in a miki brief whether or not this needed to be tried before it was appealed. one other question for you. when we are considering what happens next, we are looking at a supreme court that you said was appointed by donald trump much of it. i mean, i just wonder how confident you can possibly be in their decisions but mostly what i'm wondering now is the delay tactics. laura jarrett was talking about this was not exactly a serious argument from the trump team. it's just an effort to get them to push it down the line so that if donald trump is re-elected, he has the ability, the chance to dismiss all of this. do you see it as just a delay tactic and is there more that might be up the trump legal

team's sleeve that we should be prepared for, john? >> they have a right to raise a lot of legitimate issues before judge chutkan, but those will be decided by judge chutkan and they will cause any delay. i believe in the courts. and i think look, this court with three justices appointed by trump still rejected all of his election challenge claims. so i just think the court is going to stay out of this as a political football and i think the courts are going to recognize that there's a great public interest in hearing all of the evidence. i don't think a criminal trial should be used to determine who's going to be president but i think the evidence should come out and the voters should be able to know it all and then determine whether they want that kind of a president. you asked the professor what were the founders concerned

about when they were being or they don't want a all powerful demagogue or maybe that's my word. this past summer, i visited ty kond row ga. there's an interesting relic there. a backpack or knapsack that a soldier before the revolution carried and he had a note in it and it said never surrender your liberty to a foreign invader or an aspiring demagogue. i think that's what our founders are concerned about. that's why we have equal branches of government and i believe in the court and the supreme court no matter who appointed them are going to do the right thing. president nixon appointed four justices and on one of the tapes, he said i'm not worried because i appointed those justices. turned out to be 8-0, their ruling against him on the issue of immunity and whether or not

he had to turn over some crucial tapes. >> interesting. thank you very much for coming on. mark, thank you as well. it's good to have you both. coming up, andrea mitchell has an exclusive sit-down with secretary of state blinken in israel. what he told her and hostage families about why the u.s. is not doing more to get them out. t

i could've waited to tell my doctor my heart was racing just making spaghetti... but i didn't wait. i could've delayed telling my doctor i was short of breath just reading a book... but i didn't wait. they told their doctors. and found out they had... atrial fibrillation. a condition which makes it about five times more likely to have a stroke. if you have one or more of these symptoms irregular heartbeat, heart racing, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue or lightheadedness, contact your doctor.

this is no time to wait. so... i know you and george were struggling contact your doctor. with the possibility of having to move. how's that going? we found a way to make bathing safer with a kohler walk-in bath. a kohler walk-in bath provides a secure, spa-like bathing experience in the comfort of your own home. a kohler walk-in bath has one of the lowest step-ins of any walk-in bath for easy entry and exit. it features textured surfaces, convenient handrails for more stability, and a wide door for easier mobility. kohler® walk-in baths include two hydrotherapies— whirlpool jets and our patented bubblemassage™ to help soothe sore muscles in your feet, legs, and back. a kohler-certified installer will install everything quickly and conveniently in as little as a day. they made us feel completely comfortable in our home. and, yes, it's affordable. i wish we would have looked into it sooner. think i might look into one myself. stay in the home and life you've built for years to come. call... to receive 50% off installation your kohler walk-in bath. and take advantage of our no payments

until 2025 financing.

secretary of state blinken is in te aviv liking saying that the region wants to normalize relations with israel but when hostilities end and when there's a real pathway to a palestinian state. something prime minister netanyahu has been against. blinken also sat down with our andrea mitchell to discuss hostages among other things and what hope there is of getting the rest of the hostages who remain in hamas custody home. joining us from tel aviv is andrea mitchell. so, andrea, what did he tell you? >> reporter: well, it's tough. and he had that meeting, emotional meeting, with hostage families. two men from new york and some others. they've been protesting right outside this hotel where the secretaries are meeting with all of the leaders except for

netanyahu then went to the war cabinet. he met with the president of israel and others here then that he could clearly hear outside the protest calling for a cease fire. calling for their hostages, family member, loved ones, their children to come home. and they are angry it's 100 days. they're frustrated. i talked to them afterwards then had the interview about an hour later with the secretary. he said that he was doing everything he can. he feels their pain. and he's clearly frustrated as well. let's watch. >> of course, the hostages. i had an opportunity to meet with the families again. i've met with almost all of them before on several occasions including with president biden. minute feels like an eternity. so we're also focused on bringing them home. >> i met with some of them after they met with you. they're angry. and you know that. they're angry, they say, that america is the world's greatest

superpower. where is the big stick, they said? why can't you save our six children? and how do you answer that? >> well, first, no one can put themselves fully in the shoes of the families of the hostages. if i were in their shoes, i would probably feel exactly the same way. we were successful a couple months ago in getting more than 100 hostages out. we're very determined to continue that. >> reporter: have you been given any optimism or hope that hamas will negotiate for hostage releases despite those assassinations? >> in short, yes. we've -- as you know, we succeeded before in the midst of this conflict in getting more than 100 hostages out. and it's my -- it's my belief that they can and will engage on this and that's something we're intensely focused on with qatar and egypt.

>> reporter: and you heard that exactly when we were in qatar this weekend, one of the many stops on this trip from -- near and from the prime minister that they will and they have a lot of influence over hamas as you know. that they believe these talks and -- are continuing and can continue. but there's nothing really to pin your hat on right now. i also asked him about civilian deaths and particularly the deaths of tragic -- incredibly tragedy bureau chief who lost his son, daughter, wife and now an adult son as well. there's a lot of speculation about targeted killing in this case that he was targeted and -- and the secretary brought this up to, you know, the israelis, he was asked about it by a bureau chief here in jersey tonight and he said, yes, he's talked to the israelis about doing more to protect all civilians, that includes

journalists. >> it's horrifying. andrea mitchell, thank you very much. >> you can see all of andrea's exclusive interview right here on m nbc tomorrow at noon eastern. what caused the door of an alaska airlines plane to blow out midflight. plane to blow out midflight. (christina) wanna know the secret ingredient to running my business? (tina) her. (christina) being all over, all at once. (tina) all the time. (christina) but my old network wasn't cutting it. and that's not good for baking. or judging. or writing. so, we switched to verizon, the network businesses rely on. with verizon business unlimited, i get 5g, truly unlimited data, and unlimited hotspot data. so, no matter what, i'm running this kitchen. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. ♪3, 4♪ ♪ ♪hey♪ ♪ ♪are you ready for me♪ ♪are you ready♪ ♪are you ready♪

hi, my name is damion clark. if you have both medicare and medicaid, i have some really encouraging news that you'll definitely want to hear. depending on the plans available in your area, you may be eligible to get extra benefits with a humana medicare advantage dual-eligible special needs plan. all of these plans include a healthy options allowance, a monthly allowance to help pay for eligible groceries, utilities, rent, and over-the-counter items. the healthy options allowance is loaded onto a prepaid card each month. and whatever you don't spend, carries over from each month. other benefits on these plans include free rides to and from your medical appointments. and our large networks of doctors, hospitals and pharmacies. so, call the

number on your screen now and ask about a humana medicare advantage dual-eligible special needs plan. humana. a more human way to healthcare. the bolts that were supposed to secure the door that blue off midair on an alaskan airlines flight might never have been installed, according to the ntsb. now alaska airlines and united say they discovered loose bolts and hardware across several of their boeing 737 max 9 planes. 200 jets have been grounded canceling hundreds more flights today. tom costello has more on the fix. >> united and alaska are the only u.s. airlines flying the max 9 and they're under an faa order to inspect every single

one for any sign of trouble with the door plug like the one that exploded on friday night. investigators have recovered that door plug. in the meantime, united and alaska are canceling hundreds of flights today. >> growing safety concerns as the investigation into that alaska airlines flight deepens, after the door plug exploded off the plane midflight friday night. the head of the ntsb now says the bolts that were supposed to keep the panel and plug in place are missing. >> we don't know if they were there or if, again, they came out during the violent explosive decompression event. >> alaska airlines also said late monday, preliminary inspections by its technicians indicate some hardware was loose on their aircrafts. united said its technicians discovered loose bolts on its max 9s. neither airline has started the

mandated inspection process, but that door plug is what gave way in alaska's terrifying decompression explosion friday night. >> alaska, seattle, alaska. >> forcing the crew to make an energy landing back in portland. while seat cushions were all sucked out of the plane, on monday the ntsb recovered the door plug in portland where it landed. in the backyard of bob, a high school physics teacher. with loose bolts turning up in early inspections, could more planes be at risk? does that suggest this could be a wider problem? >> that's too soon to tell. we are very focused on what we are investigating with respect to this aircraft. >> on three previous flights, pressurization warning lights lit up in the same cockpit. yet alaska only restricted that plane from flying over water to

hawaii until technicians could evaluate the problem. it's not clear if they were related to the explosion. in a statement boeing has apologized to airlines passengers saying we are committed to ensuring every boeing airplane meets design specifications and the highest safety and quality standards. a little bit more on those pressurization warning lights. there are three warning lights, the first trip suggesting there might be a pressurization problem, when the captain checked the backup systems, there were clear. that's why the plane was allowed to keep flying. they thought maybe they had a bad censor. back to you. >> it is terrifying. tom costello, thank you very much. that's going to do it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. ♪♪ hi, everyone. 4:00 in new york. the question of whether the rule of law extends to everyone