this sunday in chaos. two white house staffers resign over allegations they physically abused their wives. president trump defends his departing staff secretary rob porter. >> a tough time for him. he did a very good job when he was in the whitete house. two top white house officials now under siege for their handling of the allegations while chief of staff john kelly insists he acted quickly. >> tuesday night i heard the allegations were true. two hours later he resigned. >> what's going on in this west wing? i'll ask legislative director marc short and republican senator jeff flake of arizona.

plus russian election meddling. president trump says he doubts vladimir putin did anything wrong. >> i believe he feels that he and russia did not meddle in the election. >> and secretary of state rex tillerson seems to shrug his shoulders. >> once they did it, it's pretty difficult to preempt it. >> is there nothing they can do? i'll talk to nbc analyst clint watts. also the olympics are under way. who is most interested in the game and what does what you watch say about your politics? joining me for insight and analysis are "wall street journal" columnist peggy noonan, eddie glaude, chair for african studies, kristen welker, and erick erickson, editor of "the resurgent."

welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." good sunday morning. it wasn't just the stock market that experienced wild swings this week. consider the last few days at the white house. white house staff secretary rob porter resigns amid charges by his two ex-wives of physical abuse. chief of staff john kelly reportedly offers to resign over his handling of the issue. we learned that white house counsel con mcgahn has known for a year about the alleges against porter. hope hicks who is reportedly dating porter takes part in crafting the initial statement supporting him, and white house chief writer david sorensen resigns after his ex-wife reports that he was physically abusive. donald trump said yesterday, people's lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. is there no such thing any longer as due process? finally on friday, as if all the staff chaos wasn't enough, the

president chooses to block, at least temporarily, the democratic memo attempting to rebut the republican claims that the fbi abused its authority as part of its russia probe. all of this as many on both sides of the aisle wondering, is this a white house west wing right now nathat is spinning ou of control? >> well, we wish him well. he worked very hard. >> president trump defending former top aide rob porter on friday who resigned after allegations of domestic violence went public. >> as you probably know, he says he's innocent, and i think you have to remember that. >> porter's two ex-wives accuse him of physical and emotional abuse. both women describe his abusive behavior to the fbi. >> he definitely let me know that i was going to be contacted by the fbi once he was tapped for the white house, and he was curious what i was going to say. i told him, i'm going to tell them truth. >> now a second white house staffer is out, speechwriter

david sorensen's former wife told the fbi during a background check that he had been abusive. he denied the allegations but he resigned. the president, who has denied allegations of sexual misconduct from a variety of women -- >> they have no witnesses, they just come around. some are probably doing it for a little bit of fame. >> -- has come out against sexual violence against women. now mr. trump is reporting on how he is unhappy for the way john kelly handled rob porter. he said it could prevent him from passing a background check. but on tuesday, kelly was still defending him, calling him a man of true integrity and honor. some white house staffers are accusing kelly of rewriting

history by claiming that he acted quickly. >> also under scrutiny is white house counsel don mcgahn who first learned about the allegations against porter more than a year ago. and communications director hope hicks who is reportedly dating porter and was involved in crafting the original statements defending him. >> i don't care who you are. even if you're a rhodes scholar. you can't beat the hell out of your spouse. >> now mr. trump is openly musing about potential chief of staff replacements. kelly denied to nbc news friday evening that he has offered his resignation, but if kelly goes, he would be the latest in a long string of president trump departures. with the white house in chaos, there is a real question of who can take control. that was supposed to be kelly's job. >> the general is there to put in policies and processes and procedures, and in this case those didn't work, and we need to find out why. >> joining me now is the white house legislative director marc short. mr. short, welcome back to "meet

the press." >> chuck, thanks for having me back. >> as vice president pence and others have said that the white house could have handled this rob porter situation better, what were some of the missteps now that you can outline here that you hope to correct? >> well, let's put things in perspective. i think that rob is a friend to many of us in the administration. rob is somebody who is a rhodes scholar, is a harvard-educated guy. he did a great job as secretary, but there can be no tolerance for domestic abuse, no tolerance for violence against women. i think in the process there was probably a lack of communication between different elements in the white house, but keep in mind, chuck, this is the same process of the administration that the obama administration used, the bush administration used, and others, and that the fbi runs this clearance process. if they provide someone an interim clearance, that means they've done an initial vet and said this person is okay, there's mitigating circumstances, we're going to continue to investigate.

we had not received a final investigation. when general kelly learned the depth of the nature of the accusations tuesday night, by wednesday morning, rob porter submitted his resignation. >> explain how john kelly only found out on tuesday night when there's been plenty of reporting now that indicates that don mcgahn, the white house counsel, he knew. the fbi informed him of the two allegations and then he was contacted by a former girlfriend in november saying, hey, take these charges seriously. so is don mcgahn not informing the chief of staff or is somebody not wanting to hear bad news? >> aiit's a fair question, chuc. i don't know who knew what at this point. >> why? if we don't know the tick-tock, then, how can you defend any of this? >> because john kelly didn't know until tuesday and by wednesday rob porter was out. >> should he have known earlier? >> the fbi does the investigation, they complete it

and they come back and tell about the investigation. there's been people in the last two years who have had a wrath of investigations that come to your network and you say they could have done better. i guess the white house has gone through that same experience. >> i guess i want to go back to the idea that you say the fbi is the final say. the fbi raised plenty of red flags here. how do you guys vet staff? do you outsource it all to the fbi? in previous administrations, white house counsel actually led the vetting of staff with the assistance of the fbi. >> the fbi is the final investigation. they had not completed that investigation, chuck. >> who gave the ability of rob porter, since he only had interim status, which meant on paper that doesn't give him the highest security clearance. somebody would have had to have waived that. did the president waive that and did he know why he had to waive that? >> the president didn't waive security clearances. i think we all had full

confidence in rob, and since he had been provided interim clearance, there were mitigating circumstances. there are some who don't even get that interim clearance because there's something that comes up in their background and he doesn't get that final step. >> rob porter is able to read the presidential daily briefing. again, the fbi is saying he's not ready to sign off on a full security clearance for him. why is this fbi report basically only taken as a suggestion? >> so my understanding is that this is typical in the beginning of the administration, chuck, that yes, these sort of review processes begin to get faster. when you start an administration, you're flooding the fbi with hundreds and hundreds of requests for security clearances that take longer. so i think there will hopefully be an expedition of several that are outstanding. >> did john kelly want porter fired or not? his attitude changed. on tuesday he was almost

lamenting the resignation, calling him a man of integrity. then by wednesday he said he was shocked by the allegations. again, we went through why he didn't know at the time, but what changed there? >> chuck, i think we're all saddenned by this. we're all saddenned by the nature of this. when you work with somebody for a year, your first instinct is to say that doesn't match up with the man i know in the office. but it doesn't mean you can have tolerance for it, and john kelly had no tolerance for it. >> why did president trump never talk about the victims of rob porter? >> i'm sure there is reasons you don't talk to nbc about the victims. >> this isn't about nbc. >> we knew rob for years in this white house, so yes, when we learned about it, we were sad and shocked and didn't think this was something rob would be capable of doing. but if it is true, there is no

tolerance for it and he has since left the white house. that happened between tuesday night and wednesday morning. >> there are other republican party members who went on some of the president's favorite programs last night and blamed the fbi. does general kelly blame the fbi? >> we're not blaming the fbi. >> the fbi did its job here? >> the fbi, we wish we could all expedite this process, but i think that's incumbent on all of us to make sure it goes faster. >> so members of congress who are trying to deflect blame, they're blaming the fbi? >> i'm not blaming the fbi, chuck. >> fair enough. let me ask you one more question about the president. he seems to hesitate accepting the story of an accuser. let me show you an array of responses he's made over the years. >> it's my opinion that to a large extent mike tyson was railroaded in this case. >> it's very sad. because he's a very good person. >> these people are horrible people. they're horrible, horrible liars. >> roy moore denies it. that's all i can say.

he denies it. and by the way, he totally denies it. >> he said very strongly yesterday that he's innocent. >> does the president believe rob porter is still innocent? >> i think the president is shaped by a lot of false accusations against him in the past, chuck, but in talking to the president, he's very disturbed about what happened to rob, he's very disappointed and i believe he thinks the resignation is appropriate. >> does he have confidence in general kelly? >> he has confidence in general kelly. >> did general kelly offer to resign or not? there's been confusion in other reporting. did he unofficially offer to write the resignation letter but not officially hand it to him? >> general kelly in my mind is an american hero. there are few americans that have sacrificed more for our country. john kelly knows he serves the president and he will step aside any time the president doesn't want him to be there. but he has not offered his resignation. he has done a good job.

in the last four months we've seen 1.24 million americans get jobs. we've seen isis flee over 100% of its territory that it had between iraq and syria is gone. general kelly is doing a great job. >> let me ask you about the memo and the decision by the white house to delay the release of the democratic memo or essentially not release this version of it. this is what you said before the release of the republican memo, you and a bunch of your colleagues. take a look. >> i do think that we typically prefer transparency. >> we want full transparency. it's what we've said all along. >> this president has said from the beginning and certainly since i've been the chief of staff of six months now, i want everything out. i want this thing -- i want the american people, a, to know the truth. >> this president is for transparency and accountability in the main. >> that was the message before the release of the republican memo. >> yeah. >> democrats write a memo.

nope. no transparency. why is the president afraid of transparency on this one? >> we're not afraid of transparency. what the president said is that we believe congressman schiff intentionally put in there methods and sources that he knew would need to be redacted. and if we redacted it, there would be an outcry that says the white house is trying to edit it. so we said take it back, work with the fbi, clean it up and we'll release it. >> why do you need to do thot n that for the republican memo? >> there were not sources and methods of concern in the republic conditian memo. there was concern of us releasing it because they didn't want transparency. they offered to release the republican and the democratic memo. democrats in the house only voted to release their memo. they voted against the republican memo. there is a hypocrisy here, chuck. we will release the memo. we've asked them to clean it up.

>> marc short, i'll leave it there. thank you for coming on. joining me now, republican senator jeff flake of arizona. he joins me from phoenix. senator flake, welcome back to the show. >> thank you for having me on. >> let me start very quickly with what you're seeing in the white house. do you have faith in john kelly as chief of staff this morning, sir? >> i think the white house said they could have handled the situation better. that's a bit of an understatement, yes. they could have done a lot better particularly with the rob porter situation. >> it seems -- do you worry that this is a pattern here, that it seems as if, particularly with the president, that, number one, accusations are not believed, it's sort of a knee jerk response, and you could decide whether it's projection or some other reason, but it seems as if women are never believed when it comes to an accusation to the president or somebody close to the president. >> i do think if you put on a political hat that that is a big

problem. certainly how we are viewed as republicans in the next election, i think that that is a big problem. and certainly, substantively, it's a big problem not to show any concern or empathy for the potential victims of these incidents. that is a problem. and that's something i think the president ought to correct. >> there seems to be also another thing we've discovered in all of this which is we've got a security clearance backlog, the fbi is clearly -- they've had to spend a lot of time doing background checks on some people in the administration. there's also a backlog of some others. does this process need to be reformed in some way, and, you know, it's not clear to me if the white house views fbi background checks as suggestions or as definitive. >> right. i think there are signs that it does need to be reviewed. i think we're going to have to talk about that with the judiciary committee, certainly in the senate, because to have so many, dozens of people who

are on an interim clearance over an extended period of time that are certainly viewing and considering classified material is a problem. so if we do need to reform the process, let's do it, but this current situation shouldn't continue. >> i want to move on to a couple other topics. one has to do with the president's use of the word "treasonous" and criticizing democrats that didn't clap. you went on the senate floor this week and said treason is not a punchline. and yet the white house has said many times that, actually, some of these most controversial tweets should be treated just like that. take a look. >> the president was clearly joking with his comments. >> he made a joke. maybe you guys should get a sense of humor and try it sometime. >> i believe he was making a joke at the time. >> can you say affirmatively that whenever the president says something, we can trust it to be real? >> if he's not joking, of course. >> and he was making a sarcastic point about those 33,000

e-mails. >> let me ask you on the treasonous comment. do you think we need to get a sense of humor, or does the president need to watch his words? >> no, i think the president stops -- needs to stop calling democrats or republicans or others who don't stand or applaud at every line that he has, that they are unamerican. he also used that term, or treasonous. words matter, and when he talks about fake news, for example, i ga -- he talked about how that gives aid and comfort to authoritarians around the world who are labeling their position or dismissing real dissent as fake news. so those things matter. i don't think it's a joking matter to say that somebody is treasonous and he ought to stop it. >> you're one of the republicans who spoke up on that issue.

not many others did, and it seems that fewer and fewer are able to criticize the president when he makes these unusual attacks on his opponents. why is that? >> i think the real problem, as i tried to mention, is we are seen now as normal, things we shouldn't see as normal. and this degradation of the political culture is a real concern where we're no longer outraged when we ought to be. and that's a problem. so i do think that more of us ought to stand up and say, hey, this is beyond the bounds of where politics ought to be, and the longer we go without doing that, you know, the further politics slides into areas that just are unhealthy. >> let me move to immigration. you're already publicly talking about a backup plan. i know lindsey graham is talking about a backup plan on daca, some sort of temporary extension. you're talking about three years that would coincide with three years of significant border funding. is this basically admitting

defeat? >> no. i do think that we can get something done this week. we're going to have something in the senate that we haven't had in a while. it's a real debate on an issue where we really don't know what the outcome is going to be. we haven't done that for a while. but there will be proposals put forward. the president put together a framework that i think is constructive. there are bipartisan groups working, several of them in the senate, to come to a solution. i think that we can, but if there is a problem in the end and we can't reach that, i think that these dreamers need to be protected. >> you said something earlier this week. you said that the president claimed to you, i had the meeting with chuck and nancy but then the base went crazy. so let me ask you, can you trust the president's word that he will stick by what he wants here when it comes to daca and an immigration compromise? >> we sure hope so.

like i said, what he put out a couple fridays ago, the framework was actually helpful. i think there are some changes that need to be made to it, for example, legal immigration cannot go down significantly if we're going to have a work force that we need for the economy going forward. so there is some changes. i hope that he sticks to it. we have had some issues of him saying this looks good, and we hope you in the house and senate will work it out and i'll sign whatever. and then later saying, no, i don't like this proposal or i don't like that. but i do think that this week is going to be, like i said, something we haven't seen before, and i'm looking forward to it, as are my colleagues aand it's a lot of hard work. >> does it matter if the house won't put a bill on the floor? >> i do think, i still think, that if we put a good bill to the president that has the support of 65, 70 members of the senate that the president will accept it and the house will like it as well.

by definition, if we can get something with support of 65 to 70 senators or maybe more, it's going to be a good, broad bill that will address, i believe, the concerns that the president has outlined but also take into account the things that we need for our economy going forward. >> well, you were a member of the gang of eight. you got 68. i'm guessing you better get north of 68 on that one. senator flake, as always, sir, thanks for coming on and sharing your views. >> thanks for having me on. when we come back, could this be the end for john kelly as chief of staff? you just heard the president has full confidence. but has he actually reached his se 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.

welcome back. panel is here. eddie, the chair of the african-american studies. wall street journal columnist peggy collins and erick erickson. i want to start with the idea that there are sell by dates for

people that work for president trump. john kelly may have reached it. cory lewandowski was with him for 369. paul manafort spent 144. steve bannon was the chief white house strategist for 211 days. reince priebus lasted 190 days. what about john kelly? today is kelly's 199th day. kristen welker, how -- you heard mark short express/say the president has confidence. when a sports team owner says he has confidence, that doesn't mean he doesn't get fired the next day. >> he doesn't. we know the president is as frustrated as he has ever been with his chief of staff, not only because of the mishandling of the rob porter situation but because he's had several missteps. he referred to dreamers as lazy. that created a firestorm. the president is openly musing about replacing him with mick

mulvaney. on the other hand, the one thing that might hold the president back, he doesn't want more drama in his white house right now. >> i want to tee up something you wrote, peggy. they thought the atlantic captured something, both porter and kelly being in the cross hairs in a scandal that exposes the white house, quote, adults. then you write this. you can't really black mail donald trump on personal conduct because nothing said about him would surprise or shock. mr. porter, however, was black mailable. why did they let him stay on? maybe because they were desperate. he was a respected establishment pro. without them it was all omarosa. >> oh, yeah. there are two things that are true, one is that the white house had a lot of trouble because attracting really good workers and high level staffers early on in the first six, nine months in part because there were many people in washington who just thought this administration isn't going to work. i don't want to get the cooties

on me, i'm not going in there. there was another thing that was brought on the trump white house by trump himself. there were fabulous people in washington, experienced and accomplished and serious, real patriots. they had opposed trump in 2016. they said -- when he was elected they said, i am available. if you want to go in, i'll go into defense. the white house was very nice to them until they found out that those people had been critical during the 2016 campaign. signed letters from foreign policy people opposing trump or catholics opposing trump. they would not let anyone in who was not a fierce loyalist, and because of that, they lost a lot of talent and that is all trump. >> think about that. fbi -- they cared more about vetting politics than what the fbi was saying. >> i think it's not only the question of talent, it's also the question of character.

there's a symptom in which they're injecting indecent people in the white house. when we think about the mellow drama of this reality show that is the west wing, that is the white house itself, it keeps coming back to the question, why are these people, these particular kind of people in the white house? people who beat women, people who seem to have questionable financial dealings, folks who seem to have really noxious views about people who are different than they are. folks who seem to be insensitive to other people who are suffering. it just brings up the question of character. who are these people and why would they do that? are they a reflection, actually, of the president himself. >> eric, is it top down here? >> you know, it's interesting. i've talked to people inside and outside the white house. i wrote, maybe it is time for general kelly to go, but if so, maybe other people as well. they're like, please don't. he's the guy who's keeping the trains running around here. >> isn't that how rob porter ended up --

>> yes. >> goes to peggy's point. >> there's society issues. why was rob porter able to have such a long senate career with all of this happening with republicans. what's going on in the house and senate? >> that's true. >> i get what mark short is saying. we look at this guy. this doesn't comport to what we knew of him. john kelly probably did that. if it's true that he acted responsibly immediately upon learning the information, 40 minutes or whatever he was gone, why did it take so long for general kelly to find out the information. there are people that feel like general kelly is being set up to be pushed out the door. >> talk to lawmakers on capitol hill, they do not want general kelly to leave, for the exact reason you said. look, we got something done on tax reform. they attribute that to general kelly. keeping the president in line to some extent so they're concerned, and i have to say having covered the white house, he did bring a measure of stability that i think there's a lot of concern about losing. >> what is the stability though,

peggy? if i'm reince priebus, what's the difference between his six month rein now and the six-month rein of kelly. they're both chaotic. >> this administration started out in chaos and disorder. it evolved to chaos and disorder. it is in now chaos and disorder. the president brings chaos and disorder. i think he thinks he flourishes well in it. i think no one else really does. >> we've been able to get major legislative packages done with general kelly as chief of staff, including tax reform, that we weren't able to get done. >> mccarthy, mick mulvaney. those two are just as competent capitol hill guys. >> we won't know the answer to this question until he's gone and that's the problem nkts the interesting question is, we don't want to bring up that horrible book "fire and fury," whatever it's called. there's a sense in which there's always been a particular segment of folks in the white house who did not want general kelly there.

>> that's right. they lost power when general kelly came in and he took power from some people. they want to get him back. >> the ousted tribe wants back in. >> that's right. but i do think in terms of chaos, it's the measure of degrees. during the first six months it was chaotic every second of every day. this is the first week we've really seen it divulge into this level of chaos. >> here's what set me off. here's omarosa. >> haunted by tweets every single day. what is he going to tweet next? >> did anybody say to him, what are you doing? >> i mean, i tried to be the person and then all the people around him attacked me. >> we are worried. i need you to say, no, it's going to be okay. >> no, it's not going to be okay. not. >> not a "saturday night live" parody. that was real, eric. >> two letters that come to mind are b and s. >> oh. >> you know, she was there the

entire time. she was part of the chaos. remember, general kelly, one of his first jobs was to keep her out of the white house and suddenly we have this wave of people wanting general kelly gone. we see the chaos on a daily basis and given the fears, how much worse would it be if he wasn't there. god help us. >> go ahead. quick point. >> quick point, it wasn't scary that she went on that whacky show, it was scary that she had been head of office of public liaison in the white house, a significant job, and she is that person. >> all right. when we come back, russia attacked our election systems in 2016 and is expected to do so again this year and in 2020. so why is secretary of state rex tillerson sa tillerson sa tillerson saying there mig dear january, we're sorry. tillerson sa tillerson saying there mig we've made you all diets and cleanses. thing is, food isn't a resolution. it's fuel for our resolutions. fuel to power us, made for us.

it's whole grains, fruit and iron. protein, almonds and quinoa. food that keeps us strong. january. you deserve better. you're not a bad month... you're our beginning. special k. (male vo) raging wildfires continue to scorch parts; (male vo) allegations of misconduct; ♪ oh, why you look so sad, ♪ the tears are in your eyes, mvo: how hard is it just to take some time out of your day to give him a ride to school and show him you support him. ♪ and don't be ashamed to cry, ♪ let me see you through, ♪ 'cause i've seen the dark side too. ♪ ♪ when the night falls on you, ♪ you don't know what to do, mvo: when disaster strikes to one, we all get together and support each other. that's the nature of humanity. ♪ i'll stand by you,

♪ won't let nobody hurt you. ♪ i'll stand by you, ♪ so if you're mad, get mad, ♪ don't hold it all inside, ♪ come on and talk to me now. ♪ hey, what you got to hide? ♪ mvo: it's a calling to the nation of how great we are and how great we can be. ♪ i'm alive like you. ♪ when you're standing at the cross roads, ♪ ♪ and don't know which path to choose, ♪ ♪ let me come along, ♪ 'cause even if you're wrong ♪ i'll stand by you. ♪ i'll stand by you. ♪ won't let nobody hurt you.

♪ i'll stand by you. ♪ even in your darkest hour, ♪ and i will never desert you. ♪ i'll stand by you. welcome back. this week nbc news reported that russia was able to actually get into voter registration rolls of several states in 2016. the department of the head of cyber security told my partner. >> we saw targeted in the united

states and 21 were actually penetrated. >> also this week, secretary of state rex tillerson was asked on fox news whether the united states will be better prepared the next time russia attacks. >> we can take steps we can take, butç this is something tt once they decide they're going to do it, it's very difficult to preempt it. >> tillerson's answer prompted some to ask, what's the trump administration doing about russian interference? does it want to do anything about it? joining me now is clint watts. he's an nbc news national security analyst and a fellow at the policy institute and a former fbi agent as well. mr. watts, welcome back to "meet the press." >> thank you. >> let me start with the basics here. about a year ago you were on this show. we talked about the russian interference and you sort of talked about things that needed to be done. has anything been done to protect future elections? >> no. they've worked on the critical infrastructure designation, but the number one thing we got to do is ensure the integrity of

the vote. >> you just said designation, which means they were just trying to decide what should we try to protect? we haven't even started any actual protection. >> exactly. th this is the feds reaching out to state and locals who don't have the authority to protect the vote. right now we can't ensure the vote is accurate or changed. we need paper backup to always ensure the vote is correct. >> we learned this week there had been denials for a year that, oh, the russians sort of -- well, they may have tried to penetrate election systems but they didn't get there. then we learned later, well, it was 21 states, first it was a few states. now we're learning, actually, they got into a -- what was her quote -- i think it was a small number of states, which is still plural. i found this with facebook, too. every three months their story changed about the russian interference here. do we have the full story? >> no. and i don't know that we ever will. it's a minimization strategy

everyone is using in public relations. it wasn't that bad if one vote gets changed. we've seen the russians do this. they did this in ukraine. they changed the actual vote. luckily the ukranians caught it before it came out. but it's undermining our democracy so we don't trust the election results. it's two parts. make them think the vote might be changed and then influence them with voter fraud election rig. >> so they want us to report, russia got into the voter rolls. that's what you're saying. >> yeah. probe, probe, probe, hit. have somebody not show up and not be able to vote and then have them say, hey, how do you know the election wasn't rigged? how do you know your vote counted? >> if we're going to have a collective response here, the administration needs to be on the same page when it comes to russia. that is something the administration is not. take a listen. >> they have either interfered or they have attempted to interfere in a number of

elections. >> i think it was russia, and i think it could have been other people and other countries. >> russia is engaged in a very sophisticated campaign of subversion to affect our conference in democratic institutions. >> i believe president putin really feels, and he feels strongly, that he did not meddle in our election. >> russia did meddle in our elections. >> mattis, mcmaster, hailey definitive. the president not. him not being definitive about russia's guilt. what does that do about our response? >> we can't make a decision unless we're at the leadership level. we have to be not only in unity, we have to put together a plan to march forward. what is our response? we saw tillerson say, hey, we see what you're doing, you better not do it. if you're putin, it's a zero sum game. you keep pushing until there's a

response and there's not a response. >> why don't we have an iraq study group, any way you want to describe, any other time in our history when we've had a catastrophic event that impacted our country, we tried to study it in response. that's not there. if that existed, what do you think the first three or four steps we could take to at least mitigate what russia is is dodo. >> this is paper ballot backups, making sure there's no hacking going against the systems. the next part is the tougher part which is influence. are we looking at how russia is trying to influence senate candidates or congressional candidates? >> people forget this. they actually impacted a democratic primary with stolen information in the state of florida. >> if you're a congressman right now that's very anti-russia or anti-putin, you better bet you're going to get an influence effort levied against you. this really is having a bad effect because your president is saying, no, this doesn't happen

at all, so who has the congressmen's back if you're a mccain, a graham. he was one of the first ones out on this. >> is this something for the political parties? that's a fine line if you want the federal government to help secure campaigns, right? that's something that would make some people uneasy. >> it's really political and civil society and the social media companies that will win this battle. social media companies have to work together. part of the reason they keep minimizing and keep making discoveries is they don't share data. when we do cyber security hacking, we share data with one another. social media companies have to work together to find this influence. in the political campaigns, they have to be using encrypted apps. they have to secure their communications. and americans have to stop doing falsehoods against each other. release the memo is a home run for the russians.

they don't need to make a false narrative. americans are making false narratives against each other. they just repeat them. >> how effective do you think these russian bots are, or are are some political sources overblaming russian bots? >> that's what americans should worry about. the honest ads act has not been passed. we're seeing politicians use this warfare against each other. the russians don't have to manufacture falsehoods, they can just repeat what americans are saying about each other. >> clint watts with that uplifting analysis there at the very end. clint, as always, thank you for coming on. >> thanks for having me. when we come back, actual uplifting music there, right? the olympics are under way. the olympics are under way. who is most us. the olympics are under way. who is most 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. proof of less joint pain. and clearer skin. this is my body of proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis with humira. humira works by targeting and helping to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain,

stop further joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number #1 prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. want more proof? ask your rheumatologist about humira. humira. what's your body of proof? juice this, cleanse that. but, food isn't a resolution. it's fuel for our resolutions. whole grains, fruit, protein... food that keeps us strong... so we start the new year strong. special k ♪ 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. ♪ let the games begin. it's "data download" time. for the next two weeks most of our eyes will be on pyeongchang, south korea and the 23rd

olympics. new data from gallup tells us who may be paying the most attention. only about a third of younger americans are planning to watch a great deal or a fair amount of the olympics this year. that number jumps to double digits when we look at middle aged to older americans, and more than half of 55 or older do plan to watch more of the olympic games. there is even a divide among older americans. 50 plus in age of men are planning to watch regularly while a majority of women in the same age group say they'll be frequent viewers. older americans grew up watching the olympics at a time when it was more of a singular event than it is today. these numbers are evidence that the olympics still has a strong hold over this group of folks. there is also a political element here, but the divide is not quite as stark as you might think. 40% of liberals, 40% of moderates and 30% of conservatives all say they'll watch a great deal or a fair amount of these olympics. this lack of a divide may be a

bit surprising since folks on the left tend to be a bit more active in the winter sports than those on the right. for instance, liberals are 15% more likely than the average american to skate and they're 25% more likely to ski. while conservatives are 35% more likely to participate in target shooting. look, i know what you're thinking. is target shooting really a winter sport? in a sense, yes. don't forget the biathlon, the event with both intense amounts of cross country skiing and target shooting. so if you're looking for a sport that can truly unite the left and the right, this could be it. one problem, it is the only winter sport the united states has never meddled in. when we come back, it's end game time. president trump's approval rating is up and the democratic advantage and the generic congressional ballot is down. why they may not mean what you think it means. coming up, end game and post game brought to you by boeing,

continuing our mission [ click, keyboard clacking ] [ 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. (vo) do not go gentle into that good night, old age should burn and rave at close of day; rage, rage against the dying of the light. do not go gentle into that good night. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort, your sleep number setting. and snoring? does your bed do that? right now during the ultimate sleep number event, save 50% on the ultimate limited edition bed with adjustable comfort on both sides. ends soon. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you. end game. brought to you by boeing. continuing our mission to connect, protect, explore and inspire. i want to quickly do a round on russia. look at the poll we had earlier

this week. a large majority believe it is largely russian attempt to influence the 2016 election, 57% overall. but 41% believe it's not likely. kristen welker, this lack of belief on this partisan split here probably explains why we don't have a plan. >> right. there is no plan, and as you pointed out, the president still hasn't definitively said that he wants to do something about it. if you talk to lawmakers, they say he's got to get tougher, he's got to get tougher on sanctions, for example. he still hasn't imposed those sanctions. he needs to convene a commission to actually hit this head on, and he hasn't done that yet and it could hurt in the midterms. >> erick, explain why so much of the president's base -- i know why they don't want to believe it. does it bother them at all his odd denials? >> no, it doesn't, because he

fights. you hear this over and over. but gorsuch, on and on they have felt this existential crisis to them in the country from gay marriage to everything washington influencing every part of their life. and here comes a guy saying washington shouldn't influence your life, i'm going to fight back to all the people who have been fighting you, and they agree to it. i can remember when the democrats were laughing at him in 2012. >> i would say here's my big concern. we are, as we all know, a deeply divided country. we have these partisan fights. they're very rough and tough. this side watches this, the other side watches this, we're not in the same information flow. one thing that could damage this nation terribly is having a national election where the outcome is unclear because we got hacked. the state says the national

election by 2020 -- right away they say you have to go paper ballots. we'll figure out all this intellectual technical stuff, but right now paper ballots so ohio knows how everyone voted. >> i think you're right, but one step back. for distrust to be the background condition for politics is one thing, but for distrust to be the currency of politics is another. so now there is a sense in which both sides, democrats, you can't trust what republicans are saying. republicans, you can't trust the deep state. russia kind of stoking that distrust. it's kind of the currency deflating our democracy. >> i want to do a little turn to the election itself. midterms, president trump's approval rigt on december 13, minus 21. now it's a minus 12.

a pretty big improvement. and the democratic generic ballot has fallen from a high plus 13 on december 27 to plus 7. we don't know this latest drama, because a lot of times trump drama suddenly recedes any advantages the republicans have, kristen. >> absolutely. the republicans say they're bracing for potentially losing the house. the comments we heard from the president this week in responding to the rob porter crisis didn't help in the eyes of republicans and democrats, frankly. they feel like he's missing the moment, like he's being tone deaf at this critical moment where there is this national reckoning, this me too moment. you speak to folks who say, look, he could have said something about the accusers, about the ex-wives, then at the same time said, and we wish rob porter well. but he didn't do that, and they feel like that's something that could cost not only him but the entire republican party. >> erick, i feel like you represent this swing group about

president trump. because when he vascillates it's like he puts you back. president trump is not perfect, you write in november. he was not my choice to be president but i am thankful he put neil gorsuch on the bench. i am thank for r many of the president's stellar improvements. and on december 29 you write, the gains conservatives have seen have come from the trump administration but president trump himself has been an undisciplined distraction. the gains have come in spite of the president rather than because of him, and you go on to warn that you think it could set conservatism bam. -- back. so where are you? >> i think when he does good things, he should be praised, when he does bad things, he is set back. he has done good things, his administration has done good things.

but i do think ultimately you risk getting conservatism and evenie v evangelicals set back harder to be a role model. you want your kids to see somebody who is a good influence and he fights. i don't want him to fight that way. i believe they need to be held accountable until the last day and they don't need to fight that way. >> talking about democrats in this next sicycle, the progresse wing of the republican party are deeply skeptical about how schumer and others are behaving with regard to trump. these numbers are actually an indication -- >> even the base democrats are nervous. >> there are some base democrats that are really, really nervous and they need to be careful. >> i think the base democrats in 2018, something i would keep my eye on at the moment. i used to say, it's unclear what

they stand for. now i say they stand for daca right now. that's one issue. that seems to me to have both pros and cons with it. second point, marc short said just a few minutes ago, 4.2 million americans have received a bonus or a pay increase with tax reform or the tax bill, however you put it. that is going to reverberate down the road in 2018. if that is right, the economy is better, watch it. >> all right, guys. that's all i have for today. thank you for watching. a big thanks to my friends in miami. a deeply touching weekend for me with miami-dade public schools. join the olympics. we'll be back next week because if it's sunday it's "meet the press." >> announcer: you can see more "end game" on the facebook "meet the press" page.

october 4th, opening night. another celebration in pittsburgh. captain sidney crosby carried out his teammate's named engraved on an old trophy and 18,000 watched one more banner. the newest of five head toward the top of home ice. what was left was finishing the celebration with a win, but st. louis captain ruin sthad with an overtime goal. his second in that game.