kind of like shopping hungry equals overshopping. this sunday, letter this sunday, letters to the ayatollah. why did 47 republicans write to iran's supreme leader. >> i'm embarrassed for them. plus, is hillary clinton too big to fail. >> i opted to use my personal e-mail account. >> what her controversy over her e-mails could mean for her presidential bid. also, the class divide. we asked americans where they think they belong. are you really middle class? in tend game, lindsey graham started it here on "meet the press." >> i never e-mailed. >> now, the other washington politicians who admit never taking that bridge to the 21st

century. i'm chuck todd. joining me this morning are matt bay of yahoo! news, karen finney, my colleague andrea mitchell here at nbc and kevin madden. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, this is "meet the press." with chuck todd. good morning. the white house is it heing back hard on the issue of iran. late last night, they sent their own letter to senate republicans. this of course, comes after 47 republican senators warned iran's supreme leader that congress could undo any deal the president makes. the gop presidential contenders were quick to endorse the letter's message. but democrats and pro-republicans blast the move. keep in mind, it's not just the

united states negotiating with iran, five other countries are involved. they, too, denounced the tactic. if there's no deal the only country that will be left sanctioning iran will be the united states. in this letter controversy nothing more than a side show to the main event. will any deal actually curb iran's growing influence in the middle east? iranian militias have joined the fight against isil. bill, that very point, iraq is making some real progress against isis over the last couple of weeks, could they have been doing it without the help of these iranian militias? >> i think the answer is no, chuck. >> it's never been so visible. they're everywhere. their colors are everywhere. 20,000 men.

he's directing dozens of iran iranian officers operating drones, artillery and rocket systems. saudi arabia foreign minister showed that iran is taking over iraq and it's true that iran's militias are answerable, not to baghdad, but to tehran. and it's ironic chuck, that in the 1980s iran and iraq fought a terrible war to a stalemate with a million dead. i mean, you could argue iran is not winning the fight, winning the war for a broken iraq. >> you brought up saudi arabia. this widening sphere of influence that they have. not just in iraq. but in a lot of countries that touch saudi arabia. >> there's a bigger battle. with the sunni kingdom of saudi arabia.

that goes back thousands of years. iran is consolidating a -- to syria a rebellion has just succeeded also shiite majority. so, you could say that the worry is this arc of influence will deepen and that's the worry of nuclear negotiations, that if sanctions are lifted sunnis fear iran's influence will simply consolidate. now, if iran helps to defeat isis in iraq, what kind of victory really in the end is that for the united states. >> well the complexity of this iranian relationship. >> bill, thank you. i'm joined by retired admiral the former chief of the joints chief. welcome back to "meet the press."

>> good morning, chuck. >> this basic question here, is it a good thing or a bad thing that iran is such an important ally of iraq right now in defeating isis? >> i think it's a part of what's going on in iraq that we have to accept. the number one priority there, i think, is to defeat isis. but i don't think we should ever lose sight of the fact that iranian regime as well as the irgc and specifically the leadership of the irgc has committed a lot of terrific -- a lot of terrorist activities in the region that actually led against us in the iraq war and killed many americans. and so the working together right now in a constructive way to eliminate the number one threat in iraq i don't think that opens the door for accepting who they are and what they've done in the past.

and once we're beyond isis, i think, that certainly the relationship that we have with iran from the standpoint of what they have done for so long will be based on the elimination of those kind of terrorist activities that are evident throughout the region. >> the united states make a strategic mistake on one hand we were rhetorically saying we're going to get rid of isis, but not follow that up with forces on the ground, so instead, iraq and frankly, some in syria have had to turn to iran? >> i think that the question of boots on the ground is one that is obviously widely debated, i'm hard pressed to believe that iran wouldn't be in doing what they're doing no matter what forces we have may or may not have on the ground and quite frankly as someone who's not in the know on a regular basis, i

would be hard pressed to give you a recommendation one way or another. suffice to say, isis is the one we need to eliminate there and how we'll progress against them in syria as well. >> one thing that senator graham said to me last week and i'll get your opinion on what he said. here it is. >> they're the root cause of this problem in middle east, as isil. >> you fear iran more than isis? >> absolutely. >> admiral mullen, do you fear iran long term more than isis? >> i do. i think iran is a much more difficult challenge and an incredibly complex country that we don't understand very well, we haven't had relations with them for 35 years. there's a complexity inside that country that is represented by enormous tension on the part of

president rouhani who is considered to be a reformer. surprised selectee as president and the idea logical faction led by the supreme leader and it is the supreme leader and his group if you will that lead in the judiciary and read lead with respect to the military and this whole focus on the nuclear deal is part of where i think president rouhani wants to get so that possibly he's got a chance with elections next year with respect to those who will select the next supreme leader with parliamentary elections next spring, a more reformed direction for the country of iran and a future that's much more integral to the

international community. >> you were one of the co-chairs of the investigation into the state department and their workings on the benghazi attack and what went wrong, seeing this controversy about hillary clinton's e-mails, do you believe you had all of the information at the time to make the assessment you made at that time? >> i'm very comfortable, chuck, and i have stated this several times, with the arb, with what we reviewed and the conclusions that we reached in that regard. i'll let those who continue to investigate get to the details of what has recently occurred, but, again, i'm comfortable with tom and myself and the other members what we did and what we recommended to the secretary of state. >> all right. admiral mullen, thank you for your time and your service over time. >> thank you, chuck. an interview that runs tomorrow, president obama

couldn't contain his anger at the senate republicans that wrote the letter. >> i'm embarrassed for them to address a letter to the ayatollah. who they claim is our mortal enemy and their basic argument is, don't deal with our president you can't trust him to follow through on an agreement. that's close to as unprecedented. >> that distracting background noise is courtesy of vice. that's how they decided to release the clip. anyway for more on iran. i'm joined by senator from mississippi. he signed that letter. senators, welcome. back to meet the press. senators, this morning, some

senators have regretted some parts of the letter. i know some senators have regretted some parts of the letter. do you have any regrets on signing the letter who it was addressed to? on how this controversy bubbled up this week? >> i stand by the letter. i think it's interesting we've had so much talk about process. just like we had talk about process with prime minister netanyahu's speech rather than dealing with the substance. i was struck what i heard the admiral said, he said he fears iran more than he fears the islamic state and he has reason to say that. this is the country that we're negotiating with on this agreement, they are the chief exporters of terrorism around that region. the president's own northern command admiral, just last week

said, they are not abiding by the international inspection regime and they're developing new missiles. i think the substance should be that this is a country that we're negotiating with that frankly our president and our secretary of state feel pretty comfortable with and i don't have much confidence that any agreement that they make they'll abide by. >> let me ask you this, if there's no agreement, the sanctions are going to go away from all of the other countries accept the united states, britain, france, germany, russia, china, it's likely they all walk away from these sanctions. it seems as if this is a box? >> well, i don't know if they said that. if that's their announced position, then they're negotiating with one hand tied behind their back. to me, everything should be on the table. that's always been our position as the united states.

when dealing with an adversary. if, in fact, our negotiating partners and members of the other negotiating team, some of whom are closer to us than others, if they're in fact saying, regardless how this comes out we're out of the sanction regime, to me, that's not the way to get a strong deal for the west. >> senator kaine, let me go to you here. there is a letter this morning from the white house chief of staff on behalf of the white house, it's addressed to senator corker. it has to do with potential legislation that you are also a co-sponsor to, that has to do with congress' role in approving a nuclear deal. here is what denis mcdonough writes. we believe the legislation would likely have a profoundly negative impact on the ongoing negotiations, emboldening iranian hard-liners. moreover, if congressional action is perceived as preventing us from reaching a deal, it will create divisions within the international community, putting at risk the very international cooperation

that has been to pressure iran. what do you say to the president? clo who clearly doesn't like the legislation that you're a cosponsor of? >> i'm a proud co-sponsor of the legislation and, look, the white house is frustrated with congress because congress is taking action in the last few weeks, showing an unacceptable level of contempt for the office of the president. however, let's be realistic here, the deal that is being negotiated with iran is about what will iran do in order to get out from under congressional sanctions? and so it is unrealistic to think that congress is not going to be involved in looking at a final deal. i am a pro-diplomacy senator and i've supported the negotiations to this point. but any deal that touches upon the congressional statutory sanctions is going to get a review of congress. and the only question is are you going to have a constructive, deliberate, bipartisan process or are you going to be rushed and partisan? we have seen the wrong way to go about it last week.

i hope we will approach it in the careful and deliberate and bipartisan way. >> well, it is clear the white house is afraid you guys may start voting on this legislation as early as march 24th, later this month, before the end of the month. sounds like the white house is hoping you wait until the -- if there is a framework announced in the next ten days, then the final deal that you guys don't touch start talking about this until june. are you willing to wait that long before you and senator corker decide to enact this bill? >> you know, chuck, there is no reason to wait until june on our bill. all our bill does is sets up the process under which congress reviews a deal. and here is what it does. if the white house gives sanctions relief under executive sanctions, they have complete authority to do that without congress. if they want to give international sanctions relief and can convince partners to do that, they can do that without congress. only when they touch, the congressional sanctions must congress get involved and we have a 60-day period, either to approve the congressional sanctions, disapprove it or take no action and no action is

defined as approval. this is a very bipartisan and deliberative approach to looking at something that is fundamentally about our nation's security interests and if they're going to unwind congressional sanctions, congress is going to be involved. >> very quickly, will you have a problem if they go to the u.n. first, senator kaine, and get the deal ratified there before coming to congress? >> chuck, if they go to the u.n. about international sanctions, they have the complete ability to do that. sanctions that the white house has entered into without congress, they have the ability to take action without congress. when they touch upon congressional sanctions, congress will be involved and the only answer is, what is the process that is bipartisan and deliberative and constructive? >> senator wicker, if they go to the u.n. first, is that a mistake? >> well, they do have the right to deal -- the u.n. has the right to deal with u.n. sanctions, but here is the thing to understand about this letter. i would think tim would be frustrated by that letter.

what they said this morning, in the new letter, is not only do we get a preliminary deal must congress not pass legislation, but they're telling tim kaine and bob corker, people who have negotiated with six republicans and six democrats, you can't pass legislation until i, the president, get a final deal and negotiate it in june and only then will a co-equal branch of the united states government be allowed to weigh in. i would think that senator kaine would be frustrated by that. >> i'll leave it there. senator kaine, senator wicker, thank you for coming on this morning. big, i important topic. that to me is the news this morning. the white house was tolerating this idea of congress not getting involved until march. now they realize, oh no let me look at the calendar, it's march. can we wait until june? senator kaine, that's an important moment. he said, no, we're going to go in march. >> that's an important moment. and, you know, the problem that the white house has, their

caught between the 47 republican senators who many believe went too far in trying to interfere with the negotiating process, and this bipartisan group including corker and kaine, they're big supporters on the foreign relations committee, who want in. they want in on the unilateral sanctions. there's no reason they can't go to the u.n. and talk about the international sanctions, but the ones that they can deal with and the congress has the right to deal with is immediate. look, it is still not clear they're going to get the deal. i say it is now more than 50/50, but there is some really tough negotiating issues still in play, including not only when the sanctions will be lifted and how, but the inspections process. that's how iran has cheated before. and what no one is talking about is that they have not even begun to get clear answers from iran about their missile technology. their warhead technology, the delivery systems. you can have a bomb and if you can't deliver it, it is not as threatening. that hasn't been clearly on the table. >> kevin, let's go to the politics of this with republicans. michael gerson, this is former

president bush's speechwriter, wrote this about the letter, the 47 republicans. this was a foreign policy maneuver in the middle of the high-stakes negotiation with all the gravity and deliberation of a blog posting. it raises questions about the republican majority's capacity to govern. again, michael gerson writing this. that wasn't some liberal columnist writing this. >> if you look at the substance of the letter, it was really civics 101, congress and 47 senators stating what they believe was their proper role in this process. i think if you -- if there is a legitimate criticism or concerns about the diplomatic wisdom of it, that's fine. but, if you listen to senator kaine, and you listen to senator wicker today, they're actually in unison on their criticism of the president and the white house's not bringing them into this process more. and not including them more. the white house should be building support with this congress. >> kevin brings up a point. it does seem like despite what the 47 republican senators did, it didn't chase away tim kaine yet.

>> it didn't. but, you know, think about what admiral mullen just said in terms of you have a president of iran who is trying to -- looking towards elections, trying to get this nuclear deal to try to move in a more moderate direction. those 47 senators essentially bolstered the extremists, bolstered the military position, right. that actually undermines the person in iran who may be trying to move in a more moderate direction. that doesn't help us either in our concerns about what is going on in iraq and the region, nor does it help us with our negotiating position. >> matt, i have to say, it doesn't seem like there is a good political outcome here for either party if we look at that and frankly, doesn't look like there is a good strategic outcome no matter what happens with iran. >> well, no, because, you know, nonproliferation is something -- we have been quite fortunate, remarkably successful over the last 30 years or so with nonproliferation. it is not, you know, long-term this continues to be a more and more pressing -- >> are we negotiating nonproliferation or negotiating slowing -- henry kissinger put it, are we managing

proliferation? >> that was a great quote and somewhere along the line some president is going to have to turn that corner. never in history have we put the technological genie back in the bottle. >> north korea and saudi arabia and all that, very fast. >> the real problem is not the letter. it is whom it was addressed to. you don't send a letter to the ayatollah. >> i'll hit the pause button there. coming up after the break, it is the hillary e-mails and the question democrats are asking, is she too big to fail? and if so, is there even a plan b? we'll be right back. and this is a soda a day for a year. over an average adult lifetime that's 221,314 cubes of sugar. but you can help change that with a simple choice. drink more water. filtered by brita. ♪

and introducing our new advanced filter, now better than ever. heroes charge! ♪ (explosion) ♪ (explosion) ♪ (explosion) ♪ lead your heroes in the hit mobile game! download heroes charge now!

and welcome back. republicans have made it clear, they're not going to let up on hillary clinton and the furor over her use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state. they used this weekend's gop radio address, believe it or not, to say they will try to gain access to her e-mails to answer key questions that they still have over benghazi. a controversy many people thought had gone away. so, if clinton hoped her first public comments on the controversy this week would quell the feeding frenzy, she had to be disappointed with the reaction that followed. >> her answer as you might imagine satisfied some, not others. >> hardly anyone is satisfied. >> the story is not going away.

>> hillary clinton was supposed to spend the month of march gearing up for an april presidential announcement, which features to friendly audiences and staying above the fray. >> do you have hillary clinton's new e-mail address? >> i can't share it with you. >> instead, she is yet again in the middle of a political and media circus. >> hillary clinton. >> hillary clinton. >> hillary clinton. >> leading even some of her democratic supporters to worry that her new campaign, like the handling over the controversy of her private e-mail system, will be slow to respond and quick to go off message. >> i believe i have met all of my responsibilities, and the server will remain private. >> and some democrats are publicly and privately wringing their hands about the familiar drama. an often contentious relationship with the press, forged in the 1992 campaign. >> this will test the character of the press, not only my character that has been tested. >> a familiar cast of characters. >> it is ludicrous and it's a silly story, it's a story driven by tabloid journalism. >> the bare minimum, even to defenders and a penchant for

secrecy. >> you just told us you didn't follow the rules because having two separate e-mail addresses would be way too big of a pain. you know what is a far bigger pain? trying to delete 30,000 e-mails. >> clinton remains the democrat with the most fund-raising potential, the best chance of holding obama's coalition together, and of being a barrier breaking candidate. and her allies argue the drama will subside once she has a full fledged political operation. >> there is not a presidential campaign with 20 people in the office who can return all the calls and xerox all the statements. that's bumpy. >> and yet some democrats are openly wondering if a contested primary is actually a good thing for her. but not all agree with that, including '92 clinton rival governor jerry brown. >> certainly not. i can't think of anything i would rather have less where i would be rooting for president than to have a competitor in the primary. >> i'm joined now by republican congressman trey gowdy of south carolina, he's chairing the special house committee that is

investigating the benghazi attack. congressman gowdy joins me from south carolina. welcome back to "meet the press." >> yes, sir. thank you. >> let me start with a basic question on the e-mails from hillary clinton. she says she turned over all relevant e-mails from her server. you don't necessarily -- it sounds like you have a trust but verified issue with her. but do you think she's lying? do you think she's not turned over certain documents? do you have reason to believe she's not turned over certain documents? >> no, sir. i would never accuse anyone of lying unless i had overwhelming proof to that effect. i just know this, we don't get to grade our own papers in life and she had a very unique arrangement with herself as it relates to public records. and it is not just my interest in them. i have a very small subset of her documents, which would be libya. it is the public record in general that i think she bears the burden of proving that all public records are in the public

domain, and that any discrepancies between personal and public that she reconciled or resolved those discrepancies in a fair way. >> when it comes to -- you said you want to have her testify twice now. once off camera, not in a public way, to try to discuss exactly her electronic communications and things like that, and then a second time in a very public way when it comes to all things having to do benghazi and libya itself. is she the main focus of your investigation here? is that why you want her twice? >> oh, heavens no. i think it was a "wall street journal" reporter that went and looked at our three previous hearings and i mentioned her name a whopping zero times. so she is a very important part of understanding what happened in libya and benghazi, but, chuck, we're scheduled to interview 50 witnesses between now and the conclusion. so she would be 1/50 of that. her documents at 45,000 that

we're reviewing would be a small subset. she's very important. but she is by no means -- she is not even a -- she's not even a central focus. she is certainly not the central focus. >> i would assume that means your also the cia director at the time david petraeus a big role in that and everything going on in libya and benghazi at the time too, i assume you're in the middle of negotiating with him as well, trying to get documents and e-mails from him and schedule his testimony? >> well, we would very much like to talk to general petraeus, as you know. he has been otherwise engaged for the past several months. and i'll be curious to see the details of the agreement that he reached with the government, if it includes a cooperation paragraph, then certainly we would consider our committee to be worthy of that cooperation, but we have not scheduled his appearance yet. but clearly he's someone else we need to talk to if we want to understand fully what happened before, during and after benghazi.

>> let me ask you to respond to something, the national review wrote this week, just as mrs. clinton did not turn over any of her private e-mails until the state department finally asked for them, gowdy by his own account did not issue a subpoena to address a scandal he's long known about until the scandal became public. that in itself is a scandal. essentially the question is, if you knew about this private e-mail issue back in august, of last year, why did you take so long to subpoena and get more information now? >> well, chuck, the power of subpoena is only as good as the power to compel compliance. and in my previous job as a prosecutor and i think the author of that article is a former prosecutor also, you had great tools to compel compliance. in the legislative branch, you do not. so we had been working since august to secure access to all of her relevant documents and e-mails, subpoena is kind of the final thing that you do when all else fails.

the state department told us they wanted a different kind of relationship with us. and we took them at their word. what we later found is it was kind of a one-sided relationship. the state department is not very cooperative and when we realized that, and i give credit to the reporter, it wasn't our committee that uncovered that, it was a reporter, then we issued a subpoena. >> larger question here, what are you hoping to find that five other investigations haven't found? house intelligence committee investigated benghazi and seemed to clear any of the conspiracy theories away from it. senate intelligence committee issued a report, similar findings. house armed services, senate homeland security, and of course, the original state department accountability review board, what has been missed in these investigations that you're now trying to find? >> well, i can't tell you what has been missed. i can just tell you this, we interviewed nine witnesses so

far this year that no other committee of jurisdiction has interviewed. we're looking at documents that no other committee of jurisdiction reviewed. no other committee interviewed susan rice. no other committee interviewed secretary clinton. no other committee interviewed all of the witnesses that were on the ground in benghazi. so we have been asked to write the final definitive accounting. it may or may not corroborate what other committees have done, but frankly corroborating other people's work is not too much to ask when you have four murdered americans. so i'm not on a hunt to necessarily debunk or correct what other people have done. even if you corroborated it, it is worth your time. >> are you going to be done with

this by the end of this calendar year rather than get into '16 and become a player in the presidential race? >> lord, i hope so. i would like to be through as quickly as possible. but keep in mind, when you are never told that the secretary of state kept her records, when you're never told that she didn't have a state.gov e-mail account, it does tend to draw things out. so, as soon as the witnesses are available to us and the documents, we're going to go ahead and conclude our report. i have no interest, zero interest, in you and i having this conversation in 2016. but i don't get to fully decide how quickly it is done. i need cooperation from the people who have access to the witnesses and the information. >> all right, trey gowdy, who is heading up this investigation, i appreciate your time this morning. we'll be checking back in. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. all right, let's bring in the panel. matt bai, i'll start with you. you wrote something interesting this week. >> for once. >> for once. it literally was the only reason why i brought you on. i'll set you up a little bit, you wrote, it wasn't that she couldn't answer the questions coming at her, it was that she

didn't think she should have to. if i'm a clinton adviser, that's a problem for me. transparency and authenticity are paramount in the social media culture and the lack of it, ask mitt romney. >> i don't know, you know, i don't know why edward snowden can't just give us all her e-mails and get this over with. why are we still talking about this. >> let's go to somebody else, they must have them. >> they have all of our e-mails. look, there are great advantages to being in the public arena as long as the clintons have been. organization, allies, experience, all of it. the disadvantage, i think, is that when you're there that long, you can miss changes in the political culture. you can fight the same battle you fought 20 or 30 years ago. by the way, this happens to reporters, too. we are not immune to -- >> been there, done that disease. >> you don't see what is in front of your face, someone younger comes along and gets it. i think she needs to change as a candidate and change her perspective in order to be successful, especially if you're running against a jeb bush, who makes openness such a theme, rand paul, who talks about civil liberties and secrecy in government. that's a sharp contrast with her approach. >> you're a big defender of secretary clinton.

you know, you may end up working for her campaign, full disclosure, we don't know. a lot of democrats may work for her campaign. >> trying to get me in trouble here. >> to matt's point a little bit, did secretary clinton have been there, done that disease, where she assumed it was the '90s all over again and maybe was overly defensive? >> you know, i don't think so. i thought she was trying to be sarcastic with her first answer. i think the fact she went out there and did it and said, look, in hindsight, i would have done it differently. for all those who criticize how slow she was, i think she deserves credit that she went out there and did it. because, that's been the other criticism. you wanted to see her come out, i don't think she in any way, shape or form thought -- i think given your interview with trey gowdy, it is obvious this is not going away, this was not intended to end the conversation. but i also thought, you know, matt made an interesting point in his piece, also more broadly, about hillary and the thematic about hillary in terms of the time that when she became first lady and when that narrative about her and the clintons were set, the country was not ready for someone like her.

and so i think she's being held to a different standard, i would argue, jeb bush has a lot of problems with his e-mails. if transparency is paramount to becoming commander in chief, let's have the same standard for everybody and she's already turned over 55,000 pages. >> the problem is, jeb got ahead of it. she had an opportunity to get more ahead of it. >> but he still hasn't released, chuck. >> do two wrongs make a right? >> no, but that's not the point. the point is everybody should be playing by the same rules. same standard. >> andrea and kevin, let me throw something up here. there is no woman politician in america that we polled on more in our 25 years than hillary clinton. and check out this chart, it looks like an ekg. we have four points in time that we have here that show you the highs and the lows. her lows have been when she is the central focus. whitewater investigation, presidential campaign. her highs are when she gets to be above politics, either as secretary of state or during the monica case, she was a victim, a

bystander here. the question is, how does she -- she could be victimized by the way house republicans aggressively go after her, but at the same time look like the hillary clinton of the whitewater days. >> in fact, one of the big high points was beijing when she went up against everybody and gave the big women's speech 20 years ago and she was trying to reframe her approach to the campaign on that level. and it got interrupted by this. i think one of the arguments against what she said, she said that everything that she sent to someone at the state department was captured because the state department system. and one day later, it turns out according to inspector general's report and i dug deeply into this, because you're pushing back on me, nothing was captured, nothing was automatically captured. >> it is not the only system. >> amd i'm well aware of that but they cannot guarantee what was captured and what was not. >> there's no doubt. kevin, the larger picture here, you're the congressional

republicans, jason chavitz, do you fear that congressional republicans could get in the way? and actually make her look -- >> yeah, there is always the risk of overreach. so far i think that hasn't happened. i think one thing i was very struck by trey gowdy's interview is how measured and focused he was. he was focused on doing what he thinks is his role as a constitutional oversight. as long as that focus remains there, i think the congressional folks will be all right. i think in the 2016 context, the big problem for hillary clinton here is that this becomes a character crisis. at a time where trust is so low, the american people have such a low opinion of people in washington, the fact that hillary clinton looks like she's hiding something and that she can't be trusted, that's a huge problem. but the last thing i say too, it was so apparent how much political rust hillary clinton had during that press conference. reading half answers that were scripted right in front of her, when she's exposed to the elements in politics right now, she really hasn't risen to the occasion. i think a lot of folks looking at 2016 see that as an

opportunity. >> yet, she's the only former secretary of state who turned over 55,000 pages. colin powell hasn't turned over anything. madeleine albright hasn't turned over anything. >> i will pause. i will pause. >> there's the assumption that she used e-mail for classified information. that is not the only form of communication in the state department. you know that, andrea. there is two very different systems. >> totally separate. we'll pause it there. you'll get another bite at the 2016 apple, i promise. the class divide, what economic class do you think you belong to? coming up, what class do you

♪ edward jones. this is shirley speaking. how may i help you? ♪ oh hey, neill, how are you? how was the trip? with nearly 7 million investors he's right here. hold on one sec. you'd expect us to have a highly skilled call center. kevin, neill holley's on line one. ok, great. and we do. it's how edward jones makes sense of investing.

coming up, what class do you think you belong to? here in america? where do coming up, what class do you think you belong to? here in america? where do you fit in? that's all coming up. time to get up! a woman's body changes over 500 times a day which can cause odor. so, secret clinical strength tracked christie bruce's ups and downs for a day. oh no, just one each now. mommy.

dad's home i'm going to work now. secret clinical strength has adapts + responds technology tm for customized protection that adapts to your body. so no matter what's going on inside... you can be fearless outside. breaking news here on msnbc. straight to live there in st. louis. as we now listen to a briefing that's just begun. an arrest in the shootings of two police officers.

in ferguson, missouri. let's dip in. >> in front of the police station. also charged with firing a weapon from a vehicle. which is a class "b" felony in the state of missouri. one for each one of those. essentially, the at this point, the investigation is ongoing. there's an awful lot to be done. but the charge at this point is a result of the investigation so far information developed -- the case developed through information provided by the public. essentially what we've charged them with is firing shots. it's possible at this point he's firing shots at someone other than the police. but struck the police officers. so the charge is still assault in the first-degree class "a" felonies for striking those two officers. there's a weapon recovered, which has been tied to the shell

casings that were recovered there. weapon recovered from him. and he has acknowledged his participation in firing the shots. that, in fact, he did fire the shots that struck the two officers. so i do want to say first, as with all cases, they're mere allegations and he's innocent until proven guilty. he is in custody in this building now, the bond is set at $300,000 cash only. the investigation is still ongoing. we know from reviewing what we have so far, the police have done that. that there's still a lot of people out there, you can tell from some of the videos that were there who may have witnessed this or at least seen parts of it. we can see them looking in certain directions. what got the police to this point is information that was provided to them by members of the community. and i can't stress how important that is in every case. but certainly in this case it has been invaluable to do that.

there's a lot more information, and we can tell from, as i said the videos that there are a lot more people who were there who may have something to offer whether there are additional charges to be filed, whether these charges are adjusted in some manner or whether there are additional people to be charged. so we'd urge everybody, anybody who has any information at all to contact either crime stoppers or the county police. i'll have a copy of the charges available. and the probable cause statement. if anybody has a few questions at this point. keep in mind this is an ongoing investigation. there's still a lot to be done. there's not a whole lot we can talk about. >> not firing on a police officer? >> well, the evidence developed at this point. and in part on his statement that he may have had a dispute with some other individuals or felt some dispute. we're not sure we completely buy that part of it. but in any event, it's possible he was firing at some other people and the officers, of

course, were in the back. however, it's still an assault in the first-degree. it's a class "a" felony. >> do you know what the dispute was about? >> we're not sure there was a dispute. we have to go on the evidence that we have at this point. like i said, the investigation is going to continue. there are claims that he's made that he was -- he had a bit of a dispute with some other people who were there which had nothing to do with the demonstrations that were going on. but that he was firing at them as opposed to directly at the police officer. >> and he was in the car, you said. the vehicle driving down the main street there? >> correct. well, he was on the side street yes. >> the street that goes -- >> i'm sorry? >> was -- >> well as i said there's a lot more investigation that needs to be done. there are a lot of things that have to be checked out. as you know from previous investigations that we compare what information we have from people to the physical evidence that's there. some of that matches up. at this point, some of it does not, and that's going to go on.

but enough certainly right now. certainly enough right now to file these charges. i'm sorry, you were saying. >> there might be other suspects? >> it's possible there are other witnesses. whether there are other people ultimately charged. we have to wait and see. that's why we need the cooperation of the public. the rest, anybody with any information to come in. again, this is a result of the public contacting the police department. contacting law enforcement and providing information that led to this gentleman. >> i'm sorry, what? >> i can't give you a whole lot of detail on it. i can't say that the weapon was recovered certainly is the -- matches the shell casings that were, recovered a the the scene were fired from that weapon. it's a handgun. it was a 9 or a 40? >> so you're saying -- >> correct. well, these are members of the public who provided information.

that's as far as we're going to go with that this morning. >> was he involved with the protests? >> yes. he is a demonstrator. he was out there earlier that evening as part of the demonstration. he's been out there on other occasions, part of the demonstrations. but, at this point, it appears that as you already know the demonstration was pretty much over at that point. people were leaving. and that's when this came about. i wouldn't go that far, no i wouldn't say he wasn't targeting police. i'm saying right now the evidence that we have supports filing the charge that he may have been shooting at someone other than police, instruct the police. that's when the investigation is completed and we may be able to disprove a lot, that part of it. >> -- that night. >> no. >> no. no, there was no physical fight. physical altercation or anything involved.

>> is he local? >> yes. >> where is he from? ferguson? >> i don't think it's in ferguson, exactly. but in the general vicinity, yes. >> and police officers been notified, what was their reactions? >> well they've been they've been notified. and they've notified by their departments. and so i'm sure they're relieved. but short of that, i have not talked to them. i'm sorry? it was a handgun. >> where was the weapon recovered? >> well it was recovered pursuant to a search warrant that was issued again based upon information that we received from the public. in his residence. >> that's all -- i don't know. there's so much more that needs to be done. you know, we're looking at this point right now to see if there's a basis to file charges and hold him at this point. so there's a lot more to be done about the specifics. >> does the video evidence

support that he's the shooter? >> there's a lot of video out there. and i hope there's a lot more from the various organizations that are here that -- and if there is anything that may show that or anything at all, certainly, we'd appreciate that being provided to law enforcement. at this point, you know, there's audio and video, there's video -- i'm sorry, audio that's part of a video where the shots have been fired and the like. >> there was a red vehicle about 20 seconds before. >> the shots did come from that how far up that hill, i don't know. but, yes it came up from up in that direction. and the red vehicle certainly was a big part of the investigation, still is. >> are you confident this is the only shooter involved? >> no, at this point, no. confident that i think that it appears that there's only one person firing shots. but it's possible there may be other people who were with him

at the time who were participating in this. that's where the investigation's going now among other places. you what? >> well again, i have to be somewhat careful of the rules that are there, and i can't go into great detail on that. the information i can say is, yes, he's acknowledged firing the shots. >> i'm sorry? >> is he on probation? >> eyes, here in st. louis county for receiving stolen property. and actually i think there's a warrant out for him on that because he's neglected to report for the last seven months to his probation officer. i'm sorry? >> would the attempts do that? oh absolutely. absolutely. i mean there's -- that was the purpose of the reward is to you

know, that anybody has information to bring that in. bring that information forward. and so that's obviously a determination finally made down the line but, yes, absolutely. the eligible for that. okay. thank you. 20. >> and you said it was just st. louis? >> no north county. i don't know. he's not -- he doesn't live specifically in ferguson, not far from ferguson. >> the shots coming from inside the car? >> well, it was inside the car. the allegation he's inside the car at least for some of the shots. so -- all right? >> have you received a lot of cooperation from other protest leaders or people at the protest to help your investigation? >> well, i can't tell you where

it came from but there are people out there that provided information. but, yeah, the specifics and i'm sure there were some demonstrators and some who weren't. observers and some out there. i can't tell you specifically who was doing that. but, yes. >> you refer to. was this something that happened earlier in the evening? something that was happening there? >> yeah. and -- i hate to be -- i hate to be too terribly vague about it but, you know, we're not 100% sure there was a dispute. you know, that's part of the claim right now. and so that's something that's being investigated. there are a lot of people around, and it's difficult to tell, particularly just at this point whether there's an actual back and forth going on whether it's on some of the video or not on the video and the like. but that's something everybody's looking into it. it's possible there was a the dispute. and it's possible he was targeting the police officers. we just have to wait for the investigation to develop more fully.

right? the basis for these charges. i want to point out specifically, though, it's he is charged with assaulting these two police officers. regardless of who is an intended target, that's still an assault in the first-degree. still punishable by life in prison. that's on each one of the counts pending against him. >> do you know who the target was or possibly was? >> no. >> have you spoken to -- >> no, we're looking for anybody out there, anybody with information, anybody who thinks they might have any information to contact the county police or crime stoppers and we'll follow up on it. so -- >> you know the charge is still going to be assault in the first degree so it's essentially the same charge.

>> were there any civilians around that could have been possibly targets? >> you know there were civilians between, between where the shooter was located and where the officers were. there were civilians between them. so it's not as though there was no one there. but at this point, i said, there's a lot more investigation to go on so we can finally determine that. the important point is that yes, two officers were shot. and seriously injured, and that is the basis of the assault. whether it ends up as assault of a law enforcement officer or assault in the first degree. it's a class "a" felony. >> -- that i was assaulted eded by this particular individual? >> no, there's nobody, nobody's made that claim. thank you. >> it's not the same guy.

i don't know any relationship. so. >> thanks. >> the officers are still recovering. i think may have a little more. how the officers are doing. i know they're recovering. >> they're okay. they do know about this. they learned of this last night as the detectives were continuing to work this case. kind of as this case broke. so obviously it's incumbent upon us to make sure these police officers, these victims in this case understand what's going on with the case. and we, in fact, did that. they're getting better not getting worse. that's good news. i would like to commend the investigators. we had leads pouring in from not only the area here but as far away as the east coast. departments trying to assist us. but federal agencies local agencies, all manner of local agencies all manner of federal. and the public's a big deal.

you're going to hear police commanders say this all the time. we cannot do this by ourselves. we have to have the ability to engage the public two ways to where we can work together or can't make it happen. in fact, that happened in this case. and i am certainly -- that is the way it is supposed to be. it happened. the outpouring of support from all manner all strata of folks that are involved in this has been overwhelming. and i do appreciate that also. thank you, guys. >> what's the ethnicity? >> jeffrey williams is african-american. anybody else? >> -- used in part of the arrest. >> i haven't heard that myself yet, so i don't know. thanks, guys. 10:30 last night. take care.

>> the breaking news at this hour, it is 2:00 local time in st. louis, missouri ferguson missouri, here in new york it's almost 3:00. and if you're just joining us, an arrest has been made. with a suspect in the shooting of two police officers on thursday in ferguson missouri. and the name of the suspect so far, jeffrey williams 20 years old, an individual from the area of st. louis, missouri. they did not give us any more information about that. prosecuting attorney, robert mccullough spending just about 15, 16 minutes laying out some of the details. 40 caliber gun, assault in the first degree there are two counts that could result in life in prison. on the ground there watching this entire case force throughout the last several days nbc correspondent. there's lots of things to talk about here. first of all, something that may have happened that could put a stop in the cascading set of

events that we've seen within the last five or six days that has seen tension grow day after day. what do you make of what was released just this afternoon there in st. louis, missouri. >> well like you said we are receiving a lot of information, we are learning a lot of new details right now, including that williams was arrested last night around 10:30. as you mentioned, he's facing numerous charges and authorities say he has acknowledged that he did fire those shots from a vehicle. now, here is where it gets more complex. he has alleged so far to officials that this may have been part of a dispute unrelated to the protests and that he may not have been firing at the police officers. they stress this is an ongoing investigation and that they are not confirming that in fact was the case. he was not aiming at officers, and that he -- and this was not part of the protests or part of the separate dispute with some