security summit, but that event has been overshadowed by russia's suspension yesterday from the g8 group of nations. we may hear more from another developing story regarding proposed legislation regarding the nsa, the president's stance there. meanwhile, the desperate search for survivors continues after that weekend's massive mudslide in washington state. 176 people have been reported missing since the landslide, though officials stress that many of those reports may be duplicates. president obama has now declared a state of emergency and fema has dispatched rescue efforts for the search of survivors. trained dogs are also being used to work on the rescue effort, but with no survivors found since saturday, time may be running out. >> i never lose faith, and a lot of the people in this community will never lose faith, but i

think there's a realism element that's entered in, and as we enter into day three, we see the devastation and i think the realization is that we have responded as well as we can and we will continue to do that, but we are turning that very delicate corner into the recovery operation. >> yesterday, six more bodies were pulled from the mud that has destroyed homes and debris left in the mudslide's wake, bringing the total confirmed dead to 14 people. nbc's jennifer bjorklin is live for us. what are officials saying about the number of people missing and some of those names may be duplicate. how are they confirming who's missing and who may be accounted for at this point? >> reporter: well, tamron, they issued a plea last night for family members to give them photographs, pictures, specific information about each person that they believe was in the area.

there are 200 people that live in that mudslide zone, and it was a saturday, so a lot of people were home and there were also people who were passing through. people who might have been initially reported missing, but then checked in with family. officials are saying, please, let us know who we can take off that list so we know exactly how many people we're looking for. so that 176 number, they say, is definitely going to go down, but the death toll of 14, as the search intensifies today, can go nowhere but up, because they know there are many people unaccounted for that will not be found alive. >> and that is the incredible part of this. i mean, looking at the before and after pictures, jennifer, even yesterday, it is hard to believe that this happened with no warning for those people, but i've also heard reports that there have been folks in that community who have been concerned for a long time that this was a possibility, despite the fact, again, noting there was no warning of this

particular event that took place over the weekend. >> reporter: there was a slide there in 2006 that was not quite as catastrophic. geologyists said for a long time this could happen and we're surprised to see new homes being built in this area. right underneath where this unstable mountain is, it's glacial tilt, which is very common in the topography around this area, where when the water table rises, it becomes very unstable, and that's what happened here. just for perspective, when you see that sheer cliff, that dropoff with the trees on top, that cliff where everything failed is the height of the washington monument. >> jennifer, thank you very much. also i want to get our audience caught up on the other story we've been following as the weather suspends for the search of malaysian flight 370. outraged family members are

demanding more answers from the airline and the malaysian government. hundreds of family members, in fact, marched on the malaysian embassy in beijing, angry by the lack of evidence to back up their search that the plane ended in the indian ocean. chinese officials are demanding to see that satellite data used to conclude the plane went down there, and after drawing widespread criticism for a decision to notify many of the family members about the presumed fate of the plane via text message, today the airline ceo released a statement saying in part, our sole and only motivation last night was to ensure that in the incredibly short amount of time available to us, the families heard the tragic news before the world did. wherever humanly possible we did so in person with the families or by telephone or by sms. keir simmons, obviously, a lot of attention on the families and

their heartbreak, this as the search today suspended due to weather again. >> reporter: yeah, that's right. suspended, and that means that, again, another day lost in trying to find some of this debris that has been spotted by satellites, but which hasn't been found by aircraft or, indeed, by the ships crucially, because they might be able to drag it onboard and take it back to australia and get it tested to establish whether it is connected to flight 370, and it is so difficult for these relatives, because until now or until last night at least, they had been expecting that that would be the conclusive proof and instead you have this announcement that says scientifically research suggests or has proven as far as the malaysian government is concerned, that flight 370 did end in the southern indian ocean. and they have been protesting,

as you say, today. and even last night, immediately afterwards, incredibly emotional scenes, tamron, as relatives emerged from a meeting in beijing, walked out having been given this news. people wailing, people in tears, clenching their fists, some taken out on stretchers because of how difficult it was to hear this news, news that initially many relatives got by text message, as you say, tamron, although malaysian airlines says it did make an effort to tell everyone by telephone or in person before it told the world. >> keir simmons, thank you so much. i now want to take you to the hague where president obama is holding a joint news conference with the prime minister of the netherlands. let's listen in. >> i'd like to say a few words about a tragedy that recently took place back in the united states. over the weekend, a massive landslide swept through a tiny town called oso in washington

state, and while i won't get ahead of the ongoing response and rescue operations, we know part of this tightly knit community has been lost. first responders have acted bravely, despite still dangerous conditions. the american red cross has opened multiple shelters and the people of washington state have been quick to comfort and help citizens. i just spoke to governor inslee, who swiftly declared a state of emergency, i signed that emergency declaration to make sure he has all the resources he needs. my administration is in contact with them on an ongoing basis. fema and the army corps of edge nears also on site to offer assistance and expertise. i would just ask all americans to send their thoughts and prayers to washington state and the community of oso and the families and friends of those who continue to be missing. we hope for the best, but we recognize this is a tough situation. now, as for our work here in the

hague, i just want to repeat the extraordinary work that mark has done in helping to organize this, getting alexander and the people of the netherlands, your hospitality has been remarkable, your organization has been flawless. to all the people who were involved in putting this together, including those who were putting up with the traffic that i caused, i want to say thank you. i'm told there's a dutch word that captures the spirit, which doesn't translate exactly into english, but let me say that my first visit to the netherlands has been truly hozelic. you know, i convened the first nuclear security summit in washington four years ago, because i believe we need a serious and sustained global effort to deal with one of the greatest threats to international security, and that's the specter of nuclear

terrorism. we made further progress in our second summit in seoul, and under your prime minister's stewardship, we built on that progress here. in keeping with the spirit of these summits, this was not about vague commitments, it was about taking tangible and concrete steps to secure more of the world's nuclear material so it never falls into the hands of there'ses terrorists, and that's what we've done. so that those supplies can be eliminated. in a major commitment, japan announced that it will work with the united states to eliminate hundreds of kilograms of weapons usable nuclear material from one of their experimental reactors. that's enough for dozens of nuclear weapons. dozens of other nations have agreed to take specific steps towards improving nuclear security in their own countries and support our global efforts.

some have pledged to convert their research reactors to low enriched uranium. we've set new goals for implementing our nuclear security measures, including sharing more information to show we're all living up to our commitments. i've made it clear that the united states will continue to do our part, as well. our nuclear regulator will develop new guidelines to strengthen cyber security at our nuclear power plants, and we've pledged to pursue the production of a key medical isotope used to treat illnesses like cancer without relying on weapons usable material. we're also going to work with our partners around the world to install more radiation detection commitment at ports and transit sites in order to combat nuclear smugg smuggling. and all of this builds on our previous efforts. 12 countries and two dozen nuclear facilities around the world have now rid themselves entirely of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, dozens

have boosted security at nuclear storage sites or built countersmuggling teams or improved nuclear security and training. the international atomic energy agency is now stronger and more countries have ratified the treaties and international partnerships at the heart of our efforts, so we've seen a fundamental shift in our approach to nuclear security, but as mark indicated, we still have a lot more work to do to fulfill the ambitious goals we set four years ago, to fully secure all nuclear and rad radiological material so it can no longer pose a risk to any of our citizens. i believe this is essential to the security of the entire world, and given the catastrophic consequences of even a single attack, we cannot be complacent. i'll close by reminding everyone that one of the achievements of our first summit in 2010 was ukraine's decision to remove all its highly enriched uranium from

its nuclear fuel sites. had that not happened, those dangerous nuclear materials would still be there now, and the difficult situation we're dealing with in ukraine today would involve yet another level of concern, so it's a vivid reminder that the more of this material we can secure, the safer all of our countries will be. we've made progress, we've got more to do, we're going to continue our work, and i look forward to hosting the fourth nuclear security summit in the united states in two years, so thank you again, mark, and all your team, as well as the people of the netherlands, for this outstanding summit. >> thank you, mr. president. we'll go straight to the questions now, and the first question will be julie pace, associate press. >> reporter: thank you, mr. president. you've been criticized during this dispute with russia as not understanding president putin's motivations. as recently as last month, you and others in your

administration said you thought putin was reflecting or pausing his incursion into crimea. did you misread putin's intentions, and what do you think his motivations are now, and if i can quickly ask on nsa, in january you said you weren't sold on the option of having phone companies hold meta data. what's changed for you on that matter since that time, and do you think congress will pass the legislation you're seeking? and mr. prime minister, there are leaders in europe who have concerns about the sector sanctions the president has proposed on russia's economy. do you think any of those leaders have had their concerns alleviated over the past few days? thank you. >> all right. let me see if i can remember all these. with respect to president putin's motivation, i think there's been a lot of speculation. i'm less interested in motivation and more interested

in the facts and the principles that not only the united states, but the entire international community are looking to uphold. i don't think that any of us have been under any illusion that russia has been very interested in controlling what happens to ukraine. that's not new. that's been the case for years now. that's been the case dating back to the orange revolution. but what we have said consistently throughout this process is that it is up to the ukrainian people to make their own decisions about how they organize themselves and who they interact with. and it's always been our belief that ukraine is going to have a relationship to russia. there is a strong historic bond between the two countries, but

that does not justify russia encroaching on ukraine's territorial integrity or sovereignty. that's exactly what's happened, and i said very early on that should russia do so, there would be consequences. and working with our european partners and our international partners, we have put in place sanctions that have already had some impact on the russian economy. now, moving forward, we have said, and i want to be very clear about this, we're not recognizing what has happened in crimea, the notion that a referendum sloppily organized over the course of two weeks would somehow justify the breaking off of crimea and the annexation by russia. that somehow that would be a

valid process, i think the overwhelming majority of the world rejects, but we are also concerned about further encroachment of russia into ukraine, so what i announced and what the european council announced, was that we were consulting and putting in place the framework, the architecture, for additional sanctions, additional costs, should russia take this next step. what we also said and will continue to say is there is another path available to russia. the ukrainian government has said it is prepared to negotiate with russia, that it is prepared to recognize its international obligations, and the international community has been supportive of a diplomatic process that would allow a de-escalation of tensions, a moving back of russian troops

from ukraine's borders, and rapidly organized elections that allow the ukrainian people to choose their leadership. and my expectation is, if the ukrainian people are allowed to make their own decisions, their decision will be that they want to have a relationship with europe and they want to have a relationship with russia. and that this is not a zero sum game. and i think that prime minister and the current government have shown remarkable restraint and are prepared to go down that diplomatic path. it is now up to russia to act responsibly and show itself to be once again willing to abide by international rules and international norms. and if it chooses to do so, i think there can be a better outcome. if it fails to do so, there will be additional costs, and those

will have some disruptive effect to the global economy, but they'll have the greatest impact on russia, so i think that will be a bad choice for president putin to make, but ultimately, he is the president of russia and he's the one who's going to be making that decision. he just has to understand there's a choice to be made here. with respect -- even though this was directed at mark, i just want to address this issue of sectorial sanctions. so far what we've done is put in place sanctions that impact individuals, restricts visas being issued to them, freezes their assets, we have identified one bank in particular in russia that was well known to be the bank of choice for many of the persons who support and facilitate russian officials from carrying out some of these

activities, but what we've held off on are more broad based sanctions that would impact entire sectors of the russian economy. it is not just been my suggestion, but it's also been the european council's suggestion that should russia go further, such sectorial sanctions would be appropriate. and that would include areas potentially like energy or finance or arms sales. or trade. that exists between europe and the united states and russia. and what we're doing now is at a very technical level, examining the impacts of each of these sanctions. some particular sanctions would hurt some countries more than others, but all of us recognize that we have to stand up for a

core principle that lies at the heart of the international order and that facilitated european union and the incredible prosperity and piece that europe has enjoyed now for decades. and so it could cause some disruptions to each of our economies or certain industries, what i've been encouraged by is the firmness and the willingness on the part of all countries to look at ways in which they can participate in this process. our preference throughout will be to resolve this diplomatically, but i think we're prepared, as we've already shown, to take the next step if this situation gets worse. finally, on ukraine, i think it's very important that we spend as much effort on bolstering the economy inside of

ukraine and making sure that the elections proceed in an orderly fashion, and so my hope is the imf is able to complete a package for ukraine rapidly to stabilize their finances and their economy. the osce, other international organizations, are sending in observers and monitors, and we're providing technical assistance to make sure the elections are free and fair. the sooner the elections take place, the sooner the economy is stabilized, the better positioned the ukrainian people will be in terms of managing what is a very challenging situation. with respect to the nsa, and i'll be just brief on this, i said several months ago that i was assigning our various agencies in the i.c., intelligence community, to bring me new options with respect to

the telephone database program. they had presented me now with an option i think is workable and it addresses the two core concerns the people have. number one, the idea of government storing bulk data generally. this ensures that the government is not in possession of that bulk data. i want to emphasize once again that some of the dangers that people hypothesize when it came to bulk data, there were clear safeguards against, but i recognize people were concerned about what might happen in the future with that bulk data. this proposal that's been presented to me would eliminate that concern. the second thing the people were concerned about is making sure that not only is a judge overseeing the overall program, but also that a judge is looking at each individual inquiry that's made into a database and

that's a new plan that's been presented to me does that. so overall, i'm confident that it allows us to do what is necessary in order to deal with the dangers of a terrorist attack, but does so in a way that addresses some of the concerns that people have raised. and i'm looking forward to working with congress to make sure that we go ahead and pass the enabling legislation quickly so that we can get on with the business of effective law enforcement. >> on ukraine, let me make it absolutely clear that the european union and u.s. and yesterday we saw alignment within the g7, we're working very closely together. and i can fully support all the answers which you just gave on the question you asked. i can add one thing, which is the effect the russian economy

is very much gas and oil dependent, and that means that economic sanctions, if they will be necessary, and we are not there yet, if economic sanctions will be necessary, because there's conflict would escalate to the next stage, if this were to happen, these sanctions would hit russia very badly. and, obviously, you can never guarantee that the people in europe and canada and the u.s. will not be hurt, but we will make sure that we will design these sanctions in such a way that they will have maximum impact on the russian economy and not on the european, chinese, japanese, or american economy. that is our aim, that we work very closely together and seek total alignment on this issue. >> next question. >> reporter: this is for president obama on ukraine. reportedly, there are about

30,000 russian troops on the border with ukraine. what guarantees can you give to the people of eastern ukraine to the people in the baltic states, moldova, other countries, that they will not be next for annexation, and with regards to that also, is this a done deal? is there any doubt in your mind that putin will return crimea where it belongs, according to the west, or is this diplomatic show of force basically to prevent another land grab somewhere else? >> on the second question first on the issue of crimea, it's not a done deal in the sense that the international community by and large is not recognizing the annexation of crimea. obviously, the facts on the ground are that the russian military controls crimea.

there are a number of individuals inside of crimea that are supportive of that process. there's no expectation that they will be dislodged by force, and so what we can bring to bear the legal arguments, diplomatic arguments, sanctions already in place, to try to make sure there's a cost to that process. but i think it would be dishonest to suggest that there's a simple solution to resolving what is already taking place in crimea. although history has a funny way of moving in twists and turns and not just in a straight line. so how the situation in crimea evolves in part is making sure

the international community stays unified in indicating that this was an illegal action on the part of russia. with respect to the russian troops that are along the border of ukraine at the moment, right now they are on russian soil. and if they stay on russian soil, we oppose what appears to be an effort of intimidation, but russia has a right, legally, to have its troops on its own soil. i don't think it's a done deal, and i think that russia's still making a series of calculations. and again, those calculations will be impacted in part by how unified the united states and europe are, and the international community is in saying to russia that this is not how in the 21st century we

resolve disputes. i think it's particularly important for all of us to dismiss this notion of somehow russian speakers or russian nationals inside of ukraine are threatened and that somehow that would justify russian action. there has been no evidence that russian speakers have been in any way threatened. if anything, what we've seen are p provocators who have created scuffles inside ukraine. but when i hear analogies, for example, to kosovo, where you had thousands of people being slaughtered by their government, you know, it's a comparison that makes absolutely no sense, and i think it's important to be clear

and strip away some of the possible excuses for potential russian action. with respect to the broader issue of states that are bordering russia and what assurances do they have about future land grabs, as you put it, obviously, you know, some of those countries are nato countries, and as nato allies, we believe that the cornerstone of our security is making sure that all of us, including the united states, are abiding by article five and the notion of collective defense. and what we are now doing is organizing even more intensively to make sure that we have contingency plans and that every one of our nato allies has assurances that we will act in their defense against any threats. that's what nato is all about. and that's been the cornerstone

of peace in the transatlantic region now for several generations. so we will uphold that, and there will be a series of nato consultations, a nato add ministerial is going to be coming up where we further and deepen those plans, but i have not seen any nato members who have not expressed a firm determinati determination. those border countries that are outside of nato, what we can do is what we're doing with ukraine, is trying to make sure there's sufficient international pressure and a spotlight shined on the situation in some of these countries and that we're also doing everything we can to bolster their economies, make sure that through various diplomatic issues they know we stand by them. but when it comes to a potential

military response, you know, that is defined by nato membership. that's what nato's about. >> carl from abc news. >> reporter: mr. president, thank you. in china, in syria, in egypt, and now in russia, we've seen you make strong statements, issue warnings that have been ignored. are you concerned that america's influence in the world, your influence in the world, is on the decline, and in light of recent developments, do you think mitt romney had a point when he said that russia is america's biggest gio political foe, and if not russia, then who? and do you think these sanctions will choose putin's calculation and cause him to back down and do you see -- where do you see a russian red line, where if they go any further, if they go into eastern ukraine, into moldova,

where options beyond sanctions have to be considered? >> well, jonathan, i think if the premise of the question is, that whenever the united states objects to an action and other countries don't immediately do exactly what we want, that that's been the norm, that would pretty much erase most of 20th century history. i think that there's a distinction between us being very clear about what we think is an appropriate action, what we stand for, what principles we believe in, versus what is, i guess, implied in the question, that we should engage in some sort of military action to prevent something. you know, the truth of the matter is, the world's always been messy, and what the united

states has consistently been able to do and we continue to be able to do, is mobilize the international community around a set of principles and norms and where our own self defense may not be involved, we may not act militarily, that does not mean we steadily push against those forces that would violate those principles and ideals we care about. so, yes, you're right, syria, the syrian civil war is not solved, yet syria's never been more isolated. with respect to the situation in ukraine, we have not gone to war with russia, i think there's a significant precedent to that in the past, that does not mean russia's not isolated. in fact, russia's far more isolated in this instance than it was five years ago with respect to georgia and more

isolated than it was, certainly, during most of the 20th century when it was part of the soviet union. the point is, there's always going to be bad things that happen around the world, and the united states is the most powerful nation in the world. understandably, is looked to for solutions to those problems and what we have to make sure we're doing are that we are putting all elements of our power behind finding solutions, working with our international partners, standing up for those principles and ideals in a clear way. there are going to be moments where military action is appropriate. there are going to be sometimes where that's not in the interests, national security interests, of the united states or some of our partners, but that doesn't mean we're not going to continue to make the effort or speak clearly what we think is right or wrong, and that's what we've done. with respect to mr. romney's assertion that russia's our

number one geopolitical foe, the truth of the party is, america's got a whole lot of challenges. russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength, but out of weakness. ukraine has been a country in which russia had enormous influence for decades, since the breakup of the soviet union, and we have considerable influence on our neighbors. we generally don't need to invade them in order to have a strong cooperative relationship with them. the fact that russia felt compelled to go in militarily and lay bear these violations of international law indicates less influence, not more.

and so my response then continues to be what i believe today, which is russia's actions are a problem, they don't pose the number one national security threat to the united states. i continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in manhattan, which is part of the reason why the united states, showing its continued international leadership, has organized a forum over the last several years that's been able to help eliminate that threat in a consistent way. >> there is no geopolitical conflict which can be solved without the united states, and, therefore, i'm applauding the fact president obama's administration is active in every arena, ukraine, iran,

syria, the middle east peace process, and so many other parts of the world. take the initiatives secretary kerry is taking in the middle east peace process. i spoke with israel and palestinian territories and they are extremely grateful america is providing the issue. this is a difficult issue. it can't be solved overnight. there is no magic wand that can handle this, but progress is being made. take iran, i spoke at the economic forum in january, we have now interim court. i was able, first dutch leader in over 30, 40 years who spoke with an iranian leader. president rouhani was possible because of the interim court. america provided leadership there, so i really applaud president obama's role in all these major issues. and it is necessary, because the united states is the leader of the free world and needs to provide leadership, and he's

doing that. then your question about president putin, i cannot -- it's difficult to exactly judge what is happening in the senior leadership in moscow, in russia, at this moment, but as i said earlier, a highly undiversified economy like the russian economy, which is so much oil and gas dependent, which has not invested in infrastructure, invested in other areas of its economy, it will be worried in a risk in the financial sector or in weapons or in trade or indeed in energy, there could be potential sanctions that will hurt them. as i said earlier, we have to resign and accentuate it will particularly hit russia and not europe, the u.s., canada, or japan. that's what we are working on, and we hope we will meet it. on the red line, i cannot envision this conflict ending up in a military conflict. i don't think that's likely. i don't think anybody wants it, and at the same time, i totally agree with president obama's answer on article 5, where this

conflict will be taken to the borders of one of the nato countries, but luckily, at this moment, it's not the case. >> final questions. >> reporter: you met a lot of leaders here, many were angry about the nsa story. have you fixed the relationships with these leaders? and the second question is, many are shocked by the extent of which the nsa collects private data. today, we read in "the new york times" that you plan to end the systemic collection of data of americans, but can you address the concerns of the dutch and the rest of the world about their privacy? >> well, first of all, we have had a consistent, unbreakable bond between the leaders of europe over the last several

decades, and it's across many dimensions, economic, military, counterterrorism, cultural, and so any one issue can be an irritant in the relationship between the countries, but it doesn't define those relationship and that continues to be the case and has been the case throughout the last couple of years. as i said in the speech that i gave earlier this year, the united states is very proud of its record of working with countries around the world to prevent terrorism or nuclear proliferation or human trafficking or a whole host of issues that all of us, i think, would be concerned about. intelligence plays a critical role in that process. what we've seen is that as technology has evolved, the guidelines and structures that constrain how our intelligence agencies operated have not kept

pace with these advances in technology, and although, you know, having examined over the last year, year and a half what's been done, i'm confident that everybody in our intelligence agencies operates in the best of intentions and is not snooping into the privacy of ordinary dutch, german, french, or american citizens. what is true is, there's a danger because of these new technologies that at some point it could be abused, and that's why i initiated a broad based review of what we could do. there are a couple of things that we did that are unprecedented. in my speech, i announced that for the first time under my direction, that we are going to treat the privacy concerns of non-u.s. persons as seriously as

we are the constraints that already exist by law on u.s. persons. we're doing that not because we're bound by international law, but because ultimately it's the right thing to do. with respect to some of the aspects of data collection, what i've been very clear about is, there has to be a narrow purpose to it, not a broad-based purpose, but rather based on a specific concern around terrorism or counterproliferation or human trafficking or something that i think all of us would say has to be pursued. and so what i've tried to do then is make sure my intelligence teams are consu consulting very closely at each stage with their counterparts in other nations so that there's greater transparency in exactly

what we're doing, what we're not doing. some of the reporting here in europe, as well as in the united states, frankly, has been pretty sensationalized. i think the fears about our privacy in this age of the internet and big data are justified. i think the actual facts, people would have an assurance if that if you are just the ordinary citizen in any of these countries, that your privacy, in fact, is not being invaded on, but i recognize because of these revelations, that there's a process that's taking place where we have to win back the trust, not just of governments, but more importantly, of ordinary citizens, and that's not going to happen overnight, because i think that there's a tendency to be skeptical of government and to be skeptical

in particular of u.s. intelligence services. and so it's going to be necessary for us, the step we took that was announced today, i think, as an example of us slowly, systemically, putting in more checks, balances, legal processes. the good news is, that i'm very confident that it can be achieved, and i'm also confident that the core values that america has always believed in, in terms of privacy, rule of law, individual rights, that that has guided the united states for many years and will continue to guide us into the future. thank you very much, everybody. thank you again. >> okay, ladies and gentlemen -- >> a conclusion of the joint news conference at the hague with president obama and the prime minister of the netherlands.

joining me now live, msnbc news senior political editor mark murray and i believe chief white house correspondent chuck todd, who's traveling with the president in the netherlands. let me start off with chuck here. first, chuck, obviously, the nsa is what piqued my curiosity the most here, given some of this information was leaked out to "the times," and now we have the president commenting for the first time on some of these changes that requester expected and now we're hearing from the president regarding them. >> well, here's my understanding, there's been sort of a parallel track on what's going on with nsa, the president was going to -- has been behind the scenes talking with members of congress about his preferred legislation that he would sign, and that has been -- there's been a debate back and forth on this idea of who was going to house the bulk meta data and the president, as he explained in the press conference for the first time publicly, said it can

be done with the phone companies. at the same time, you have members of congress, including mike rogers, in the midst of developing legislation. it's all sort of coming to a head this week, so that's sort of the impetus of why this story bubbled up now, tamron. i think the president gave his road map here. he made it seem as if now all that has to happen is congress has to pass it. this is going to be a much more difficult path, a much more difficult path, than was laid out just now by the president. >> absolutely. and, obviously, the audience, which the team noted in first read, the president making these first public comments before a european audience. we know the dicey territory since the snowden revelations were made that the president has faced on these trips abroad, chuck. >> that's right, and, in fact, the last question at the presser was about nsa, and it came from a dutch journalist. obviously, the first was asked by julie pace of the associated press, but this has been a constant problem. it has dinged the president's

personal reputation, america's reputation here in europe, a lot of privacy, particularly in countries like germany in particular. anybody with some sort of memory of both the old eastern block ways, the old soviet union ways of doing business, but also of nazi germany, so there is a lot more sensitivity to the idea of big government snooping in on people's private lives. so i think it wasn't an accident that the president is able to talk about nsa reforms on european soil. >> and, obviously, mark, the other headline, the g7 summit now, but the president mixing in the international concerns of what's happening with ukraine with also weaving in the domestic challenges he's faced, specifically the first time hearing him follow up with the mitt romney dinger, zinger, whatever people have called it, during the the debate when romney said russia was the number one geopolitical foe of

the united states. >> tamron, two things struck me on two different questions, though all related to the ukraine/russia situation. the first is, has the united states lost some of its influence by drawing red lines and having other countries cross them? we saw it in syria, we saw this with russia annexing the crimea region, and president obama ended up saying what has actually occurred is if you take military action off the table, this is what's occurred in russia, all you can do is do your best to actually have your principles and have the rest of the world line up alongside you, and he noted that russia now is more isolated than it's ever been before and being able to state those principles is key. to your point on the political foe, president obama had a zinger a little bit back at that, but also hitting vladimir putin by calling russia a regional power. when you look at the powers of the world today, russia has less

influence over ukraine than it did a month ago, and president obama making that point there. >> just quickly, as well, mark, the president saying they are prepared to take the next step if these latest sanctions do not prove to be effective. he also received praise from prime minister ruda has the way he's handled this situation with russia, but another note the president said that some of these sanctions could cause disruption to each of our economies. i thought that was worthy of a follow up, as well, mark. >> well, right now the united states has unity with europe when it comes to if russia takes further action. there's really been no penalty from european countries or sanctions for the annexation of crimea, but what everyone is on the same agreement on, including germany, and that's the key in all this, if anything else happens, if russian troops come into eastern ukraine, all of a sudden you are going to see additional sanctions, things with a lot of teeth, come into

play. that is what the united states and europe all seems to be behind, and the united states wants to have that type of unity in a situation like this, all about isolating russia. >> thank you both. chuck, i appreciate you the sam. the u.s. supreme court just finished hearing arguments in one of the most significant and potentially far-reaching cases this term. at issue does president obama's health care law violate religious freedoms by employer by providing them to provide coverage for contraceptives. pete williams just listened to the argument. catch the folks up to speed on what you heard today. >> reporter: two companies are claiming they should have the freedom of religion not to abide by one part of the obamacare law, to provide contraceptives to employee, that is hobby lobby

and conestoga wood. does a for profit corporation have a right to religious freedom? i think that the hobby lobby and the two companies here were very much hoping the supreme court would reach that question and go all the way. some of the conservatives were interested to be there but some of the court's members were concerned about the affects of that. could then a company say we don't want to provide vaccines. we don't want to provide coverage for blood transfusions or aids medications. they were worried about how the consequences of going that far. it doesn't seem to me there was a strong appetite to reach that question. and it could be what the supreme court will say is, well, if you're a closely held company, a family held corporation like hobby lobby and conestoga wood and another christian bookstore, maybe you can claim religious freedom but maybe not comcast, general motors or exxon or some

other big corporation. that's one concern. the second concern though, i'd say on the part of the court's liberals, the balancing test. on the one hand you have the religious freedom concerns of the employers but on the other hand you have the employees who have a right under federal law to get access to these drugs. perhaps one way the supreme court could compromise is to say these companies will get the same kind of accommodation as non-profit religious groups could, a way for employees to get access and insurance companies pay for these contraceptives to the employees don't have to. >> thank you very much. a snowy day in our nation's capital. developing now, the prosecution has rested in the oscar pistorius murder trial meaning oscar pistorius could take the stand friday. the court went into recess until the end of the week so defense

can consult with witnesses. this comes after what's being called a game changer in the trial. text messages from the victim herself. just weeks before the shooting, reeva steenkamp sent oscar pistorius a long text message about an incident that left her very upset. the police expert who unlocked her cell phone read the message in court yesterday, including this part, where she said she wrote that she was afraid of oscar pistorius. >> you do everything to throw tantrums in front of people. i have been upset by you for two days now. i'm scared of you sometimes and how you snap at me and of how you ril react to me. >> if oscar pistorius will take the stand, he will be the first witness called by defense as employers there? >> reporter: yeah, let's deal with that first, tamron. the answer to those questions,

will be the first to testify and will he testify at all is 99%. it's almost certain that he will. it's not required by law that he testify or that if he does he has to be first. if he does not testify and does not testify first in his defense, the judge by law can make a negative inference out of that. so all of the observers think that's in fact what will happen. it's been represented that oscar -- i should say this too, he will likely not be on camera because in the court order that allowed for televising of this trial it was specifically noted he would not allow himself to be televised when he testifies. we would be the audio but not the visual. as you said in pointing out some of those texts that were recovered, that was really bombshell stuff yesterday. that was the closest we came in the trial now 15 days old to understand the nature of the relationship in the weeks and day leading up to the valentine's day in pre-dawn 2013

when oscar pistorius fired four shots into a bathroom. the state says it was intentional after a violent argument. those texts were powerful in court. we were watching the mother-in-law of tmother in court and at one point craned her neck to see how oscar was reacting. very powerful stuff. the one text you had read alluded to but also her complaints about him constantly throwing tantrums and constant jealously. he complained about her the accent she spoke and way she rubbed his neck and on and on. she felt the relationship might well not last and this was days before -- six days before she showed up at the house for the last visit to oscar pistorius's home on the night she was killed. >> mike, thank you very much. a lot of details to come certainly and a lot of people

riveted to see or hear the audio. that does it for this edition of "news nation." tomorrow, are we'll answer your questions live right after the show. you can send us your questions now. go to our website at newsnation at msnbc.com. andrea mitchell reports is up next. she'll have the latest from the supreme court on the challenge to the president's health care law. hobby lobby senior counsel will join andrea live. se. the only rinse that helps prevent tartar build-up and cavities. a little swishing. less scraping. yes! [ male announcer ] new crest pro-health tartar protection rinse. it helps you escape the scrape. is really what makes it. slike two deals in one.he $1,000 fuel reward card salesperson #2: actually, getting a great car with 42 highway miles per gallon makes it like two deals in one. salesperson #1: point is there's never been a better time to buy a jetta tdi clean diesel. avo: during the first ever volkswagen tdi clean diesel event get a great deal on a jetta tdi.

it gets 42 highway miles per gallon. and get a $1,000 fuel reward card. it's like two deals in one. volkswagen has the most tdi clean diesel models of any brand. hurry in and get a $1,000 fuel reward card and 0.9% apr for 60 months on tdi models.

[ female announcer ] we eased your back pain, you turned up the fun. tylenol® provides strong pain relief while being gentle on your stomach. but for everything we do, we know you do so much more. tylenol®.

we know you do so much more. transferred money from his before larry instantly bank of america savings account to his merrill edge retirement account. before he opened his first hot chocolate stand calling winter an "underserved season". and before he quit his friend's leaf-raking business for "not offering a 401k." larry knew the importance of preparing for retirement. that's why when the time came he counted on merrill edge to streamline his investing and help him plan for the road ahead. that's the power of streamlined connections. that's merrill edge and bank of america. i would just ask all americans to send their thoughts and prayers to washington state and the community also and the families and friends of those who continue to be missing. we hope for the best but we recognize this is a tough situation. >> i think that's the hardest

part -- we just want him home. >> right now on quts andrea mitchell reports, landslide, 14 people and more than 170 people are reported missing as desperate search continues for any survivors from saturday's massive mud slide that swept two communities in washington state. >> one square mile of debris some 500 football field widths of destruction. it just goes on and on. >> we're moments away from hearing from officials with the latest on the recovery efforts as experts question if there could have been more warning. the company line, hobby lobby makes its case in front of the supreme court arguing that insurance policy should not have to cover certain types of birth control under obamacare. the court must decide can for profit companies assert religious freedom as