this sunday, the president, the special counsel and the russia investigation. president trump tries to fire bob mueller, but his white house counsel refuses. democrats react. >> we've seen these persistent attacks to try to undermine the credibility and that, to me, is unacceptable. >> what it does do is show intent, and it's not surprising. >> this is how republicans sounded last year. >> that would be a major mistake. >> but this week. >> i'm here for a hearing and i don't have anything to comment on. >> and president trump denies all of it. >> fake news, folks. fake news. >> at issue now, will republicans move to protect mueller or the president? plus, immigration fight. president trump offers a path to

citizenship for so-called d.r.e.a.m.ers, but at a steep price. are we headed for a deal or another shutdown. my guest this morning, republican house leader kevin mccarthy and democratic senator joe manchin of west virginia. and under attack. >> there is deep concern that the fbi may have been used in a political way. >> i'll talk to former cia director robert gates about republican efforts to delegitimize law enforcement institutions they once reveered. joining me for insight and analysis are nbc news special correspondent tom brokaw, nbc news capitol hill correspondent ca kasie hunt, rich lowrie and heather mcghee. president of demos. welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history.

this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. good sunday morning. if this were a normal presidency with a state of the union message coming up in two days, we'd likely be focusing on how the president plans to sell his agenda to the public in a critical mid-term election year. this has not been a normal presidency. it was almost predictable that the president's trip to davos was going to be over shadowed by the story that president trump tried to fire special counsel mueller last fall. also predictable was president trump's response that it was all just fake news. what's not so predictable is what happens next. the attempted firing has prompted many questions. who leaked the story about president trump's intentions and why? why was it so easy for news organizations to match the times scoop unless someone wanted this story out? was it a sign that president trump is again considering the dismissal of mueller? is it a warning to him to not do it or was this a trial balloon to see if he can? and most important, will republicans in congress who once

urged mr. trump to not do this continue to hold firm on this issue? in other words, are the president's allies in congress more eager to protect robert mueller or president trump? >> fake news, folks. fake news. >> reporter: president trump with a predictable defense of yet another russia related allegation. mr. trump reportedly backed down only when white house counsel don mcbegan thregann said the m be catastrophic. they want to include legislation protecting mueller in budget negotiations. >> this president has continued to say there's no there there. well, he is acting in absolutely the opposite way of someone who had nothing to hide. >> reporter: publicly mr. trump has repeatedly denied that he has considered firing mr. mueller. >> i haven't been giving it any thought. i've been reading about it. no, i'm not dismissing anybody. >> are you considering firing

robert mueller? >> no, not at all. >> reporter: but friends have acknowledged that he has. >> i think he's considering perhaps preventing the special counsel. >> reporter: in july the president told "the new york times" that mueller would cross a red line if he looked to mr. trump's family finances. mr. trump said wednesday he looks forward to sitting down in an interview with special counsel. >> i would do it under oath. >> reporter: but worried mueller could be zeroing in on an obstruction of justice case, mr. trump's allies are warning him, if he testifies, mueller could catch him in a lie. >> it's a very clear perjury trap. >> perjury trap. >> do you have any fear of a perjury trap? >> no, but i think it would be -- i think it would be foolish to, you know, not proceed without considering that possibility. >> reporter: and ahead of the president's potential testimony, mr. trump's defenders on capitol hill and in the media have stepped up a month's long

campaign to discredit the fbi and the department of justice. >> it is abundantly clear that the entire mueller investigation is a lie built on a foundation of corruption. >> it's actually the fbi that's colluded with dnc. >> it's been a huge week of revelations about corruptions at the highest levels of the fbi and doj. >> reporter: last summer republican leaders warned that if the president threatened bob mueller's job, they would move to protect mueller. >> that would be a major mistake. >> there will be holy hell to pay. >> i have a lot of confidence in bob mueller. >> reporter: fast forward six months and republicans have greeted these new reports with relative silence. >> i'm here for a hearing. i don't have anything to comment on any other issues like that. >> there are half a million people obsessing over these investigations and i'm not one of them. >> joining me is republican kevin mccarthy. well dock back.

>> thanks for having me back. >> let's start with the issue of the president and robert mueller. does it concern you that the president ordered his firing? >> the president and the staff has fully cooperated. that's why they're moving forward. i think we'll continue the investigation and see where it goes. >> do you have confidence in bob mueller? >> yes. >> 100%? >> i have confidence in mueller, i have questions about others within the fbi and the doj, especially what's come out in the texts, especially what it's been based on. i think it's the spor responsibility -- we have an intel committee. that's raced a great deal of question. >> is there a red line the president could cross with you in his treatment of bob mueller? >> the president and his team have fully cooperated. you're making hypotheticals. >> it's not a hypothetical. we have records that he ordered to do it and don mcgann threatened to quit if asked to carry out the order. >> this is a place i have not

been a part of. i have not heard that. cooperation is where we intend to end up. >> there's a couple of bills in the senate, one would be having a three-judge panel review a decision if the president did fire mueller to see if it was done on unfair grounds. would you be open if that bill is attached to the budget bill, would you support that? would you let that go through versus -- >> i think we should focus on the budget because the military needs funding. why are we playing other games with other things? let's take the issue before us. >> would you support legislation to protect mueller? >> i don't think there's a need for legislation to protect mueller. we're raising an issue that's not. we have an issue about funding for the military. remember this, one week ago when you were sitting here, government was shut down. democrats believed government should be shut down. the children's health insurance and others were held hostage. i think what's responsible is do the job that's before us. if there's an issue that arises, we'll take it up.

right now there is not an issue. why create one if there isn't one. >> do you believe there are deep statements out to get the president? >> i have never believed that. i have people who have been u.s. attorneys and others, but it is a real question when somebody work the high end of the doj, wife is hired just to do research when it comes to do fusion, when somebody at the fbi looking at the texts, they're having an affair, it's not just somebody in the fbi, it's somebody that was responsible in looking at the investigation when it came to hillary clinton, it's somebody that was in this investigation that was with mueller. he didn't find it. it was the independent investigator that found it, and then when they have these questions about it, when you look at these entire checks and then why they were all lost right after the election, i think that gives anybody doubt. i have to people and now they have serious doubts. >> let me ask you this in the reverse. >> sure. >> if this were a democrat being

investigated, why do i have a feeling they would be saying they seem to be so concerned about the investigators. it's almost that they're afraid of the facts. >> no. >> the disputes seem to be about the fact finders, not the facts. it's sort of like you don't like where the facts are going so let's question -- it's basically johnnie cochran's o.j. simpson defense. >> no, it's the complete opposite. you have never heard me have any problems with the investigation. you asked me the question by saying, mueller, yes. what happens is the facts that came forward that an individual at the doj, his wife was hired by fusion only to work on the russian portion. low and behold -- >> you believe this is in a giant -- you're mabtipainting a conspiracy -- >> no, i don't. >> do you want people to draw conclusion that is way? it does feel that way. >> i have given you no conclusion except the facts that are out there. as i said prior, i had no problems. when these facts arise, remember, we're separate entities here and you have an

ability and a responsibility for over sight, and i think the public has the right to know. why was somebody that was in the middle concern about the election, concern about what happened after the election and that high up. i think that is a problem and we should look at it. >> right. there is an investigation and it's called the inspector general. why is that not enough for you right now? let the inspector general do their job at doj. it seems as if you guys want to supersede that investigation. >> we weren't the one that started this. you have different investigations going on. they all have their own part of going forward. we are separate but co-equal. we have a responsibility for oversight of doj and others. i don't care who was president at this time, but i want my government to be fair and open and what i'm seeing raises questions. we should look into the questions. it's just driven by the facts. let the facts take them where they may and that's the responsibility that we have. >> this memo that now the president apparently wants

released which he can do on his own. he can declassify anything he wants. do you want him to declassify this? >> look, they have been doing their investigation. they found something out. i've gone down. i've read it. the committee voted this is the process. they voted to allow members to read it. they have the ability to vote to move it forward. >> why are they afraid to send this to the justice department for review? >> well, aren't we separate but co-equal? don't we have the responsibility for oversight? the justice department will be able to see it because you have the executive branch and as they look at it they will stend to the executive branch and they have the approval to declassify. >> having read this memo, i think it would be appropriate that the public has full view of it. >> you don't believe this is somehow the president tampering with the investigation? how does this not look like this

if he does? >> because it has nothing to do with the president. it is the committee doing something, found something, voted as a whole. it was created based on what's happening from the cia, fbi, for members of congress to look at it. now they can vote to have it released. >> why don't you want senate bur to look at it. >> the intell committee is doing their investigation, not ours. >> that's a question for devin nunez. is the idea of wall for pathway to citizenship for d.r.e.a.m.ers, is that one to one? is that idea off the table that that deal can't be struck anymore? >> that deal was never on the table because when we had the meeting where we had bicameral senators, congress, you had the

media there for an hour. we all agreed, every single person in the room, we would focus on four different items. we'd focus on dak at that, we'd focus on merit and the president just put out a compromise -- >> by the way, do you view that as an opening bid, a start of negotiations by the white house? >> i view that as an opportunity to see who's willing to solve the problem. >> that's up for negotiation in your mind? >> well, that is talking with the president just put out there, i think it's a sign that shows he's serious about solving this problem. >> could that bill if you brought it on just pass the house with the republican votes? >> i think whatever we do is not going to pass with one party or another. if you want to do it, that bill has a lot of merit to solving the problem. >> lastly, do you think this has to be done by march?

or you have until the summer? >> i'd like to get it done as soon as possible. >> is there urgency to do it until march or can this slide? >> i think there's urgency to get this done, unfortunately the government was shut down by schumer. they thought they wanted to take it hostage. that stopped the meetings we were having every day and so let's just back to the table and solve it. you're asking what the president has done. he's pushed himself. to solve this problem, we're going to have to have compromise. no one will get 100% of what they want, but this solves it long term. the president went there and schumer is trying to back away. >> i'll have to leave it there. >> thanks for having me. >> thanks for coming up. now democratic senator joe man shin joins me from west virginia. senator manchin, welcome back to "meet the press." >> good to be with you, chuck. >> i ended with immigration with leader mccarthy so let me start on that topic so we don't have

whiplash here for viewers. >> sure. >> just simply the president's proposal, if that was legislation on the floor of the senate, would you vote for if. >> welling, chu, chuck, it's no legislation. hypothetically saying that, we haven't seen it. we've got to decide do we go large, medium, small? 2013 we went large. the senate passed comprehensive immigration. it was a pathway forward. we committed $42 billion to secure the border with walls and with all other technology that was needed to truly secure america, so we've been down that road. that was large. so we have to deside what venue and what avenue that we take here, chuck. but i think it's a good starting point. we've got susan collins and myself as working with a common

sense coalition of senators equally divided. we're going to meet monday night and look at the proposal. more details will come out tomorrow. we have people with expertise. tim tillis and james langford. i think we can find a way forward. >> are you comfortable supporting a deal on this that would include permanent changes in the immigration system when only dealing with the daca population? for instance, i know some democrats say, look, you want to talk about the family migration issue and what those rules are, that's fine. let's just do it for the daca population. don't make changes for the entire system. where are you on that issue? >> well, that's -- first of all, i said this before, chuck. the immigration issue has not been a hot topic in the state of west virginia. people are concerned and they want security and have good opportunities in jobs and on and on and on like everybody else

but it has not been of high concern. i haven't been on the front end of this issue. i do understand where everybody's coming from. i understand the issue. >> right. >> and also the urgency of this. i'm comfortable working with any proposal they put in either a large package or a scaled down package, chuck, but saying that, yeah, i think that we need to have an overhaul. we had an overhaul with the large immigration bill we did in 2013. i'd like to see that piece of legislation taken up and voted on again. the house would never vote on this. >> let me ask you this about this report that you pondered not running for re-election and you were -- and i'm just curious. did your threat of not running for re-election convince schumer to back down on the government shutdown? >> i don't think so, no. chuck -- i've said this.

this whole bantering back. i don't understand that. that's how they talk. when chuck and i talk, we talk west virginia to new york. i said, chuck, this place sucks. >> if it sucks, why are you running for re-election? >> because i think i can make it better. i think i can contribute to bringing people together. i'm not giving up on it. i mean, this is a small price to pay for the great country i've had the privilege of living in and being an american so i'm not going to give up on it. i don't have one republican i don't consider not my friend. i want to work with them. >> if the shutdown had continued, would you have not filed for re-election? >> i would have been hollering. i don't think chuck had the stomach to go on. he plays a part differently and i don't understand where -- i

understand the dynamics. the democratic caucus, that's a big at this point. i just said, i come from west virginia. i'm representing my state. i'm not a washington democrat, i'm a west virginia democrat. >> how much does the report that president trump said he was going to fire mueller? how much does that concern you? >> that's new york talk. that's the new york language that's different than most people. >> how is it -- how is that new york talk? i'm curious. i guess what you're trying to do there, but it's a re-election year, i get that, you have to be anti-new york and west virginia, explain that to me. >> chuck, here's the thing. a president of the united states who has been in control of his life, personally and politically. he's been able to incentive

advise through checks, bonuses, organizations, things of this sort. now all of a sudden he understands there's equal checks and balances. hopefully that will come. right now what you hear him saying and what he's going to do, let's see if he moves on ros rosenstein. >> if he did that, you would say time to pass legislation to protect mueller? >> i think at that tliem will be democrats saying it's time to protect the system. absolutely. >> what is your level of concern by what appears to be a campaign by some supporters of the president to undermine the investigators, to go after the department of justice and the fbi so aggressively? >> chuck, i -- i cannot believe and when i say this, no pun intended, but what congressman

nun nez has -- nunez has done, he has neutered it from having any confidence of the american people, any confidence in the house intelligence to come out with something in a professional manner. >> you think anything that comes out of that house committee is not credible? >> when you look at the actions and he had to remove himself and now coming back and making the a.m. cue sayings without any vetting, on the intelligence committee, we learned to keep your mouth shut. you don't throw it out to the president and say let's let it fly and see what happens. that's not how we work, and if you take the seriousness of that committee, i do on the intelligence senate committee, and i have -- i have my chairman and i have my co-chairman. >> right. >> democrat and republican, and i respect them. and we're going to come out at the end of the day and have the

findings and the facts will take you where they are. i think the house has eroded that and congressman nunez has said that. >> sorry about your mountaineers against kentucky. >> first half -- >> they're kentucky for a reason, senator. >> oh, boy. wlrt. >> appreciate it. quick programming note. i'll join a number of my colleagues tuesday night as nbc covers the president's state of the union address. their experience is coveted. their leadership is instinctive. they're experts in things you haven't heard of - researchers of technologies that one day, you will. some call them the best of the best. some call them veterans. we call them our team.

[ click, keyboard clacking ] [ keyboard clacking ] [ click, keyboard clacking ] ♪ good questions lead to good answers. our advisors can help you find both. talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future. yours. talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future. ♪ jen, i've got questions. boots or flip-flops? boot! great. smokey or natural eye? ugh, natural. good choice. how about calling or texting? definitely calling. puppies or kitties? sorry, cats. dry eyes or artificial tears? wait, that's a trick question. because they can both get in your way. that's why it is super-important to chat with your eye doctor if you're using artificial tears a lot and your eyes still feel dry. next question.

guys, it's time for some eyelove! what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. ♪ everybody two seconds! ♪ "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. ♪ back now with the panel. nbc news senior correspondent tom brokaw, heather mcghee and kasie hunt and rich laughrey, editor of national review. mueller first. tom, six months ago when the

president was supposedly thinking about firing mueller, here was the reaction from some republican senators. >> any effort to go after mueller could be the beginning of the end of the trump presidency. >> i think it would be as explosive as anything i can think single act that the president might take. >> we would certainly advise that step not to be taken. i think this is a man who many believe on both sides of the aisle has tremendous integrity and will do his work in a very diligent way. >> we have not had the same sort of reaction from republican side of the aisle. it's been much more muted saying, well, look, it didn't happen and we'll worry about it if it does. you heard leader mccarthy there claiming he has confidence in mueller but -- >> well, i think two things. one was, i was here for the saturday night massacre and the nixon white house thought that was going to unleash their ability to deal with what was going on and it was another nail in the coffin.

there ought to be a lesson in all of that. >> did they really think at the time -- we look back and realize what a catastrophic error that was. >> they thought that was the right thing to do, that their base would support them and that the president had a legal grounds for doing what he did. in this case and the climate in which we now live, people move on in a hurry. he didn't fire him. he didn't get close to firing him because the white house was pushing back and he knew what the response was going to be on the hill. i think for the country, chuck, it's a non-issue. i think that they moved on. i honestly think in the next year there will be three big factors. if it continues to go, roar on, they'll put aside the other concerns they have and say, enjoy the prosperity. the other one is, what does mueller find? do we hear from him this year? just down from that is what happens from immigration. those are the three big factors in play for the country mp

that. that's they're paying attention to. >> rich, could this be a trial balloon to see if he gets away from it? last time republican reaction was, whoa, don't do it. this time considering they've softened the ground on mueller, it's possible this was a trial balloon. >> i think if you're going to fire mueller you should have done it at the beginning because he has an extensive factual record now. i'm with tom. is it the most salient fact that he was thinking of firing mueller or he didn't fire mueller? it's continuing. you're not going to get him based on impure thoughts of firing mueller. >> but you can get him on that on firing him. if he was going to do it, he should have fired him at the beginning. why should he have fired mueller except to stop this investigation to find out if there's been criminal wrongdoing? i mean, it's kind of shocking to me that we continue to play this

partisan game when there are real questions of national sovereignty, real questions of who meddled into our election and what they were driven by and what they have on members of the trump family. this -- i feel like we are going to look back in 10, 20 years and be really disgusted by the way in which all of this was made hyper partisan and the way in which the represent karn party put party over your interview at length, chuck. why is that memo important? it's because it potentially undermines the credibility of bob mueller. i think that it does speak to this. he is still in his job and clearly republicans feel as though the best way to potentially mitigate the effects of whatever it is he finds is not necessarily to fire the special counsel because that would blow up but to very

carefully convince them that this entire thing is a charade and that's dangerous. >> we should focus on what we know and what we don't know. the president hates this investigation, he hates everyone involved in it and who enabled it. what we don't know is why. maybe he is covering up some terrible collusion. >> i think we do to a certain extent know why. this is somebody who has been obsessed since day one about this idea that he didn't maybe actually beat hillary clinton. every single -- anything that contributes to perception that he did not win the election, that he did not win it in an electoral college landslide, how many times have we heard that from this president. every day that's what this investigation represents. >> let's remember the things we've seen him in plain site. the thing out there is him looking into the camera and saying, russia, get the e-mails. setting up meetings with russian contacts about hillary's e-mails. at minimum that's a violation of

campaign finance law. trying to seek out something of value to a foreign entity. >> in the final analysis we have to wait and hear what mr. mueller has to say. what are the bill of particulars that he's going to bring to the american people. you have to remember he's already turned seven people? there singing his heart out. i think what we have to keep in mind is exactly that. let's deal with the facts as they come before us and what we're able to find out from mr. mueller and all this other speculation, we can do that until the cows come home as they say in the rural part of america, but the fact is let us hear what, in fact, the special prosecutor has to say about what he's found. >> that was west virginia talk there. >> was that? >> yeah. >> i have to get your guys reaction to the joe manchin

interview. you had a stinging reaction? >> it was a strange moment. you were asking basic guess his opinions and he was being elusive saying it was new york talk. the fundamental question about the issues around the presidency. democrats particularly, but all members of congress and the elected leaders of the country need to have coverage and politician -- >> you cover a lot of joe manchin. >> yeah, i do. i talk to him regularly and know him fairly well. do you want a democrat to hold a seat in west virginia or not? joe manchin is the only one available. >> i'm going to pause it there. we have some immy kbrags issues. i promise we'll come to that. president trump and his allies. i'll talk to robert gates and the former head of the cia

agency when we come back. agency when we come back. >> "meet the press" is ronoh really?g's going on at schwab. thank you clients? well jd power did just rank them highest in investor satisfaction with full service brokerage firms... again. and online equity trades are only $4.95... i mean you can't have low cost and be full service. it's impossible. it's like having your cake and eating it too. ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs. how am i going to explain this? if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. schwab, a modern approach to wealth management. even if you're trying your best. a daily struggle, along with diet and exercise, once-daily toujeo may help you control your blood sugar. get into a daily groove.

♪let's groove tonight. ♪share the spice of life. ♪baby slice it right. from the makers of lantus, toujeo provides blood sugar-lowering activity for 24 hours and beyond, proven blood sugar control all day and all night, and significant a1c reduction. toujeo is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. it contains 3 times as much insulin in 1 milliliter as standard insulin. don't use toujeo to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you're allergic to insulin. get medical help right away if you have a serious allergic reaction such as body rash, or trouble breathing. don't reuse needles or share insulin pens. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which can be life threatening. it may cause shaking, sweating, fast heartbeat, and blurred vision. check your blood sugar levels daily. injection site reactions may occur. don't change your dose of insulin without talking to your doctor. tell your doctor about all your medicines

and medical conditions. check insulin label each time you inject. taking tzds with insulins like toujeo may cause heart failure that can lead to death. find your rhythm and keep on grooving. ♪let's groove tonight. ask your doctor about toujeo. ♪share the spice of life. pain from a headache whcan make this...ld, ...feel like this. all-in-one cold symptom relief from tylenol®, the #1 doctor recommended pain relief brand. tylenol®. welcome back. there was a time when institutions like the justice

department, the fbi and the cia were defended by conservatives and distrusted by liberals. well, not so much right now. among the themes of the trump administration and its allies on capitol hill, the conservative media echo chamber has been the relentless criticism of federal law enforcement. >> we have an informant who's talking about a group that were holding secret meetings off site. there is so much suspicion. >> boy, i think it was disgraceful. disgraceful that the intelligence agencies allowed any information that turned out to be so false and fake. that's something that nazi germany would have done and did do. >> our republic is in jeopardy if we allow this type of palace coup environment to continue to persist. >> yesterday i had the chance to talk to a member in good standing of the so-called deep state. robert gates has been who he had of the cia and the secretary of defense. you don't get better deep state credentials than that, i guess. anyway, i began by asking him about his reaction to what has

been increasingly harsh tone republicans have taken. >> i obviously have a bias having spent my life in these institutions, and i would say that i think it's disappointing. i think that they're very important for american national security. we have over sight committees in the congress in both houses that are -- were created specifically to maintain over sight of the intelligence agencies and the fbi, and if people think that there is something wrong going on, those are the proper vehicles to investigate and to come to conclusions that reassure the american people. one of the reasons i was always an advocate for congressional oversight is that is how we can

insuran ensure agents -- >> how difficult is it to mess it up? >> if you have a rotten apple, you have somebody go rogue on you, it can obviously do real damage. it takes a long time to repair that so that's why internal discipline is so important inside these agencies. >> i want to put up something that chuck schumer tweeted, the senate democratic leader. he said this of these republican attacks. the republican attacks on the credibility of the fbi and doj are playing right into putin's hands. they constitute an attack on democracy itself. is the minority leader being hyp hyperbolic or do you agree with his assessment? >> let's just say, i've had the experience of these kinds of attacks coming from both sides of the aisle. >> yes, you have. >> this is not striekt particul

that. if they go rogue themselves outside of the discipline and the order of the committee, then that creates a problem both for the agencies but also in terms of the credibility of the congress. >> when you hear the words deep state, does it exist? there is a sense that there is these kabal of democrats that have been there forever. people would say you've been unelected so you must be the chief. >> so i -- as the director and deputy director of cia let's just say i was exposed to more than a few conspiracy theories. one reason they could never succeed is because everybody in this town leaks. the idea that you could have some kind of kabal to organize or control the government in some way and have it not leak or somebody go sell the story to a magazine or book publisher

doesn't comport with reality. >> but it really does seem to be seeping in the mainstream. this was rush limbaugh this week. listen to this. >> what if the quote, unquote, intelligence community misrepresented on purpose the degree to which hussein had wmds because, i'll tell you, it was a very, very embarrassing moment. >> so if i get this right, the conspiracy now, it's not just to up end president trump but it goes all the way back to wmds. rush limbaugh has a lot of pull. >> the reality is, intelligence folks do get it wrong sometimes and they did get it wrong with weapons of mass destruction in iraq. the interesting thing people don't pay much attention to is every other agency got it wrong.

>> a former acting c director and then he said bipartisan veterans or nonpartisan veterans, for most of us throughout our careers we maintained a neutrality. but if you have a genuine conviction that the country is endangered, you can't help but speak out about it. do you feel that dilemma? >> i think that people who have been in these positions, and i would include retired military, need to be very careful in terms of political commentary because you can be looked upon as representing that institution, not just yourself. so i think -- i think people who have occupied senior positions in the intelligence community, in the military and others need to be very cautious about getting involved in the political process. >> bob mueller, you worked with

him when he was head of the fbi. what do you make of the president's attacks on him? do you have confidence in bob mule sfler and if he we-- muell? >> he's extraordinary character and i can't think of anybody who would do a more honest and standup job of conducting an investigation and, you know, people need to be prepared that a guy like bob mueller may come to a different conclusion that will elate some people and anger some people. but i think he's -- i think -- i have total confidence in him. >> do you think congress should do whatever it could to protect him if the president decided to fire him? >> this is tough because it is an executive branch appointment.

i don't know how the congress extends an umbrella. it is an executive branch appointment. i would say this. i think that the one thing that can be done is to try and figure out how to make it clear the magnitude of the political costs that would be incurred should he be fired. >> if you want to hear more of my interview with secretary gates including his thoughts on russia, china, the cia and spies in america, that was a little bit of the college sports scene, download 1947 on apple podcast. coming up, president trump is changing the way we think of government, just not in the way you might imagine. ♪ traders -- they're always looking for advantages.

the smart ones look to fidelity to find them. we give you research and data-visualization tools to help identify potential opportunities. so, you can do it this way... or get everything you need to help capture investment ideas and make smarter trading decisions with fidelity for just $4.95 per online u.s. equity trade. fidelity. open an account today. ♪ ♪ opoh, look...nt today. another anti-wrinkle cream in no hurry to make anything happen. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair® works in just one week. with the fastest retinol formula available. it's clinically proven to work on fine lines and wrinkles. one week? that definitely works! rapid wrinkle repair®. and for dark spots, rapid tone repair. neutrogena®. see what's possible. us. it's what this country is made of.

but right now, our bond is fraying. how do we get back to "us"? the y fills the gaps. and bridges our divides. donate to your local y today. because where there's a y, there's an us. we've been preparing for this day.

over the years, paul and i have met regularly with our ameriprise advisor. we plan for everything from retirement to college savings. giving us the ability to add on for an important member of our family. welcome home mom. with the right financial advisor, life can be brilliant. welcome back. data download time. a week after washington brinksmanship shut the government down, here's a bit of

surprising news from our latest nbc news wall street journal poll. after one year of trump, people say they want more government. 358 percen 3 58% said the government should do more. only 38% said the government is doing too many things that are left to businesses and individuals. now let's compare that to this point in the obama presidency. after a year of obama only 43% said government should do more, while 48% said government does too much. so who right now thinks government should do more? well, in this case it's almost everyone. majorities of every single age group we measured. majority of women, whites, african-americans, and latin americans. plus democrats and republicans. it cuts across all age groups. so who's opposed? republicans. trump voters and white men without a degree all say government does too much. it may not be surprising

advocating for smaller government has been a corner stone of republican politics. this is the base of the gop game. as mid terms approach, we live in diverse places that aren't just democratic or republican, they're a mix. guess what, 51% of respondents that live in republican held districts say governments should do more to solve problems. that may be the number of people who want government to do more, it's simply the result of having a republican in office for a year. it's just like when a democrat was in the office for a year, they moved to the less government. the fact that it's at an all time high tells us something about the younger generation. when we come back, end game and when we come back, end game and growing accountability for stay with me, mr. parker. when we come back, end game and growing accountability for when a critical patient is far from the hospital,

the hospital must come to the patient. stay with me, mr. parker. the at&t network is helping first responders connect with medical teams in near real time... stay with me, mr. parker. ...saving time when it matters most. stay with me, mrs. parker. that's the power of and. you're more than just a bathroom disease.. you're a life of unpredictable symptoms. crohn's, you've tried to own us. but now it's our turn to take control with stelara® stelara® works differently for adults with moderately to severely active crohn's disease. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower the ability of your immune system to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before or during treatment, always tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop any new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems,

including headaches, seizures, confusion, and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. we're fed up with your unpredictability. remission can start with stelara®. talk to your doctor today. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options for stelara®. [ click, keyboard clacking ] [ keyboard clacking ] [ click, keyboard clacking ] ♪ good questions lead to good answers. our advisors can help you find both. talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future. yours. talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future. we can now simulate the exact anatomyh care, of a patient's brain before surgery.

if we can do that, imagine what we can do for seizures. and if we can fix damaged heart valves without open heart surgery, imagine what we can do for an irregular heartbeat, even high blood pressure. if we can use analyze each patient's breast cancer to personalize their treatment, imagine what we can do for the conditions that affect us all. imagine what we can do for you.

back now with end game. so the immigration deal, is this harder for conservatives to swallow? is this harder for liberals to swallow? rich lowrie, let me ask you about the right. here's what top senate candidates said about the president's proposal that would give citizenship for daca recipients. chris mcdaniel, a potential

mississippi candidate, amnesty would invite more illegals. cory stewart, i'm not happy about it. danny tartanian, i don't believe we should grant citizenship to people who come here illegally. if you're a conservative candidate in a primary, you're criticizing the president's deal. does that doom the deal? >> i don't think it necessarily does doom it. it does go to the fact that this is a genuine effort to find something that could get 60 votes in the senate. the concession on the dreamer's side is significant. it's going from 700,000 daca recipients to 2 million d.r.e.a.m.ers. if you look at the other side of the legislature, the border, reforms to the legal system, if it passes this would be the most significant victory for immigration hawks in at least a generation. >> heather, take it from the other side here. a lot of immigration advocates

who believe the permanent changes are just too much of a price to pay. >> well, they're a huge price to pay. it would affect legal immigration, which is not something that there's any kind of consensus that needs to be changed. the principal of family reunification is something that's ee norm moisly popular in this country. i have to wonder how many people in this town would be here if it weren't for that principle that families should remain together. >> is there a definition of family unification that says, you know, it's children under 18, parents and that's it? is that something that democrats could support? >> if i were here working and i'm a legal immigrant and my mother is sick at home, i want to be able to bring her here. this is the kind of values conversation that i don't think republicans want to be having. they're trying to distract from their pro corporate agenda. they're trying to pit struggling white families from families of color.

it's a short term gain. >> will democrats support it? >> i don't think so. >> tom? >> we have to build a wall. we have to build a $45 billion wall along the border. i don't know anyone who believes that that is viable or exercisable, that you can get it done and it will have a big impact. they ought to be looking at other ways to stop illegal immigration. i've been down to that border a lot. there are parts of it where you can't build a wall frankly. i was down there close to the mexican border, we found camp sites. they're coming here because of the jobs that are here. they're not coming here to create mayhem. they come here because there's a market for drugs. just one other thing if i can, i think that the people who are here already who are showing up and demonstrating should change their tactics a little bit. they're saying in effect we're here, we're going to stay and you have to take us on our terms. that's in effect what their signs are saying and then out there there's a lot of unspoken

concern about the browning of america. race is a big, big part of this, chuck. >> yes, it is. what's real on the hill? this president's proposal, is it dead on arrival or not? >> i'm not sure that it's dead necessarily, but i don't think that the wall is going to be the issue. i think that what heather was talking about is the problem. the question is is can they make enough adjustments where you can bring nine or ten democrats on board. i don't have a good answer on that. joe manchin suggested they want a chance to come up with their own plan that they can put to mitch mcconnell and try and convince him that should be the starting point. >> i feel like this smells that it could get punted even farther along. >> probably. joe manchin talked about going big, medium and small. the white house proposal is medium. go small. codify daca. not a path to citizenship in

exchange for the border provisions. >> all right. there was the reckoning, i guess is the best way to describe it, reckoning at the u.s.a. gymnastics, reckoning with the u.s.a. gymnastics. there's been more reckoning with hillary clinton, a little bit of a story in the times that in 2008 that somebody was accused of sexual harassment. campaign manager wanted to fire this person, herman cain stepped up and said no. rich marcus just eviscerates hrk on this. heather said, i think you're right. i think ruth marcus is right. she should have admitted that it was a mistake. hillary clinton has a very difficult history of men in power abusing their position in terms of sexual abuse and harassment. i think that the hillary -- our desire to bring hillary clinton continually into the story is

understandable. i think the bigger story right now is obviously what's going on in the u.s. olympic committee. >> yes. >> i think the steve wynn story is a huge story. >> absolutely. >> some are terrifying. >> steve wynn feels like the closest thing we've gotten to harvey wine steeb. >> it's worse in some ways. >> it is. harvey is in a class by himself, i think, but steve wynn is worse. >> he owns a casino, people rely on him coming into private spaces with him and face assault. i see very straightforward paraless. >> can i add one thing to what we were saying about hillary clinton. they're trying to find examples of harassment and exploiting those. i have talked to a lot of women who work inside democratic politics and i think their message to people who would do

that is don't you dare. this is a problem that spans both parties. i have heard plenty of stories. this is a pox on everybody's house and it needs to be cleaned up. >> my big issue with it, i think it's well overdue, frankly, to have the kind of disclosure that we're seeing, but there has to be some kind of codification, the difference between harvey weinstein and steve wynn and other people at the other end who are getting the same front page treatment, for example. >> right. >> don't have a chance to speak out, don't get to the people that are making it. it's all tabloid fodder and that's not good for the country. >> it is and unfortunately i have to leave the conversation there because we are out of time. that is all we have for this week. thank you as always for taking some time to tune in with us on a sunday morning. we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press."

. >> "press here" is sponsored in part by -- >> this week, the editor of the san francisco "chronicle" takes on facebook, audrey cooper versus mark zuckerberg over the future of news. fraternity brothers grow mushrooms and grounds for worry, solving coffee's black mark on the environment. our reporters take a word from al jazeera and the financial times, this week on "press here." . good morning, everyone, facebook screwed up.