he was basically out in 2009, and all that story there coincides with the rise and fall of atlantic city in modern times. a boomtown in the '80s, the '90ss. competition from other states and other places to gamble now. atlantic city not what it used to be. not as easy to make a fortune there as it once was. that's going to do it for this hour. "mtp daily" starts right now. if it's wednesday, the last big variable for hillary clinton is done. just how damaged is she? and could it get worse? this is "mtp daily," and it starts right now. good evening. i'm chuck todd in new york. welcome to "mtp daily." a lot to get to this hour. president obama has to pull back on a major campaign promise when it comes to our military presence in afghanistan. we've got a major shake-up in

the trump veepstakes as two top contenders bow oat. and bernie sanders still in the race. we begin with new developments in the clinton e-mail saga which come as the clinton campaign attempts to refocus the heat on trump hoping that a blistering assault on the republican presumptive nominee and his business record will change the subject. here's clinton speaking this afternoon in the shadow of the shuttered trump plaza in atlantic city. >> what he did for his businesses and his workers is nothing to brag about. in fact, it's shameful. and every single voter in america needs to know about it so we don't let him do to our country what he did to his businesses. >> and donald trump's response this afternoon brought it right back to her e-mails. >> she just wants to get off the

subject of all the lies that she told to the fbi and to everybody else, including the public because that's a disgrace what happened. and what's happening with respect to her. other people were punished severely and she wasn't punished at all. >> but for clinton, the damage may be done. the lingering fall out from fbi director james comey's blistering criticism of her use of a private e-mail server will spawn a cavalry of 30-second ads from both trump and frankly republicans down the ballot who are looking for somebody to run against. we're already seeing reaction from senate republicans facing re-election. senator aiot suggested clinton gets to play by a different set of rules. ron johnson classified it as unbelievably reckless. there was some glaring contradictions between clinton's past statements and comey's findings which he announced yesterday. take a look at this back and forth. >> i did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail.

>> 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. >> i did not send or receive any material marked classified. >> there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information. >> let me just repeat what i have repeated for many months now. i never received nor sent any material that was marked classified. >> a very small number of the e-mails here containing classified information bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information. >> there's some explanations coming today from the state department about why there appeared to be contradictions. we'll get to that in a moment. there's different ways they define classified. still republicans are focusing all their fire on the e-mail controversy. fbi director comey testifies

tomorrow in front of the republican led oversight committee. we'll speak to the committee's chairman jason chaffetz in a moment. they're also getting ready to grill attorney general loretta lynch. that will likely be very focused on e-mails. here's a sampling of the outrage on the right over the fbi decision. >> the fbi should give us all of their findings. they should release all of their findings, this information. >> i consider this decision an outrage and an embarrassment to the justice department and fbi. >> it's so sad that our system is rigged. >> lying matters. the dumbing down and the debasing of expectations about public trust matter. honor matters. >> well, today the state department looked to downplay some of the fbi's findings. john kirby said at least two of the e-mails marked classified were classified erroneously. these e-mails contained call sheets which includes the names of folks for the secretary of

state to call. some of them may be dignitaries. state department says that information no longer ends up classified once the secretary actually makes those phone calls. that gets confusing and only adds to this idea that there's a different definition. in announcing tomorrow's hearing with the fbi director, jason chaffetz took a highly critical tone of comey saying, the fact pattern presented by director comey makes clear secretary clinton violated the law. individuals who intentionally skirt the law need to be held accountable. that's opposite to the comments chaffetz made last month. >> if he says there's no case to make against her legally, will you accept that finding? >> probably because we do believe in james comey. i think he is, in all the government, i think he's a man of integrity and honesty. he'll be the definitive person

to make a determination or recommendation. >> well, jason chaffetz joins me now. good to see you, sir. >> thanks for having me. >> well, that was you six months ago. we believe in james comey, you said. you aren't taking him at his word now, or you are? walk me through what -- you seem to be contradicting yourself because you don't like the findings, or where are you? >> i believe director comey is a man of great integrity. he's earned that. i have no -- no desire to question his integrity. i do think it's appropriate that we ask questions about his findings because if you listen to the ten minutes-plus of the case he laid out, clearly secretary clinton was violating things that are encoded and shrouded in law. and we have questions about that. and i think that's what we do is we shine light on these things. there's no doubt that we're not going to change his mind. i understand that. but we want to hear from him. and there's no reason speaker

ryan and others have said why they can't lay all of that out there and see how he came to that conclusion. >> i want to play for you something that the lead prosecutor on the david petraeus case said to me yesterday and get you to react to it on the other side. you believe this would have been a difficult prosecution to make stick? >> yeah, based on what the director said today, the information in the public record, it appears there was not evidence of willfulness. it was the right conclusion. and i think his statement that it will be unreasonable for a prosecutor to proceed is correct. >> that gentleman was the basically chief prosecutor on the petraeus incident which gets compared to this. do you buy that difference? >> well, we haven't seen all the facts. and that's why the fbi director is going to come testify, why i hope he lays out more of the details. but, clearly, the -- mr. comey talked about intent.

the statute doesn't say that. i want to understand the difference between gross negligence and extremely careless because they seem to be synonymous. and how did he come to those conclusions? that's what we're trying to drive at. >> let me ask you this. what -- do you feel as if this hearing is putting james comey on the spot? is it the investigation? or is it hillary clinton? what are you trying to get out of here? you want to know more details of the investigation? what are you looking for in this? >> she was the secretary of state. i'm glad we're doing this roughly 45 or 48 hours after he did this. i asked which day he wanted to do it. he indicated that thursday would be the best day for him. that's what we're trying to do. we have jurisdiction in the oversight committee on the federal records act. if you aren't going to prosecute on this case, what are you going to prosecute on? because what is the precedent that this sets? he's almost setting the precedent that they'll never prosecute. you put state secrets in harm's

way? that's not acceptable. and i want to understand how he came to that conclusion and, unfortunately, there's no precedent that he is setting. >> do you believe the standard has been lowered on classified material? >> i worry there's two different standards. i worry that hillary clinton is living in a different level and a different plain and skating above the law but your average joe if he was caught doing this, without all the trappings that a secretary clinton has, they would probably be prosecuted and they'd probably be in jail. >> i've heard this, though, but don't prosecutors -- there is this line. if you don't have enough evidence, there's another way you could have heard james comey yesterday. i heard a guy say, i don't have enough evidence to get a conviction. i heard a former prosecution say that. he's the director of the fbi but also a prosecutor. do you buy that part of the argument? it's what do you have to prosecute your case? and it sounds like he said i don't have enough evidence to get a conviction? >> that's one of the questions.

is it more difficult to convict a celebrity, somebody who is widely known, such as secretary clinton versus your average joe who doesn't have those types of resources and name identification and talk shows to get behind her? i think that's a legitimate question because if you listen to the fact pattern, you come to the conclusion that, a, she did violate the law. whether you're able to prosecute and win that case, i don't think is up to the fbi director. i think that's up to the prosecutor. i recognize mr. comey is a former prosecutor but he's the head of the fbi now. >> you think this should be back at the justice department because he just said he made a recommendation. obviously, someone at justice could take you up on it and say, maybe we should prosecute now. loretta lynch said, no, she's going to accept whatever director comey said. do you think that was a mistake? >> i don't know. the timeline is somng that i think is worth exploring because the proximity to those comments

and then the surprise announcement, secretary clinton is flying on air force one with president obama, you know, bill clinton, the former president on the plane with the attorney general, it's just -- >> that's a lot of -- i hear you, but you're also going into a conspiracy theory. >> i think what mr. comey said at the beginning is right. let's deal in the facts in an apolitical way. that's what we're trying to do. we want to hear it from the person who led that investigation. and that's what i hope we accomplish. >> you think that's possible with this right now in politics today? it's interesting you say that. we all wish for that, right? we want -- but do you think if somebody wears the blue jersey on your committee, they believe one thing and somebody wears the red jersey on your committee they believe something else. >> that's why we give five minutes to everybody to ask. the ultimate jury are the american people. they can understand the facts as long as we're able to shine the light on it.

and they can make a determination. are republicans overstepping? are democrats just defending her because she's a democrat? these are all the things that the american public, they ultimately get to decide. there are people on both sides of the useful. they've already made up their mind. i want to do an honest look at this case and figure out how to fix this because i just don't understand -- >> why are you convinced it's broke sn broken? >> listening to what she did, what she said, both under oath and in public and the fact pattern that he laid out, i read it as a clear violation of the law. >> okay. jason chaffetz, congressman from utah will be chairing that committee tomorrow. we'll be watching. we're going to turn to the clinton side of this argument. her campaign is trying to turn the page by focusing on trump's casino bankruptcies and his atlantic city business record. >> i want you to understand what he did here in atlantic city is exactly what he will do if he

wins in november. step one, give a huge tax cut to millionaires like himself. step two, add trillions to our national debt. step three, he's suggested we can just default on our national debt like he defaulted on his business debt. it is the same scam over and over again, and make no mistake, he's not asking for forgiveness. he's just hoping we forget. joined by clinton supporter and former counsel of the house of representatives and somebody who they like to introduce as the smartest man in washington and yet you're here in new york. >> as you are. >> let me start with you to respond to congressman chaffetz there. i want to go to this -- because it's a lot of lawyer friends of mine have asked this. gross negligence which is in the law and careless basically carelessness which some would argue if you looked up gross negligence in the dictionary

they'd say carelessness would be a part of this. why is it not synonymous? >> so everybody is making this very dense and confusing area more confusing than it needs to be. and let me try to cut through it. the common denominator of every case that has ever been brought in a classified case situation has had as its core the intentional disclosure of classified information to somebody not authorized to receive it. that could be a journalist. often is. it could be an embaerks foreign government or government contractor. what we knew from day one of this is that secretary clinton, whatever else she exchanged, she exchanged with members of her staff and people in the government. and that one fact cuts through everything else that everybody is saying and distinguishes this investigation from every other case. including, by the way, cases where i represent a defendant who has been charged with releasing classified information to somebody out of the network. somebody out of the government. and people are not paying attention to that so important

factor which separates her case from every other case. >> but there was some -- i guess i go, what about the comparison to john deutch, former cia director who was housing it on an insecure computer. that was among the reasons why he got charged with a misdemeanor. >> in the deutch case versus others who have been looked at for, if you will, the unnecessary or inadvertent disclosure of information, that's taking the material out of the network, whatever network it is. >> she took the material out of the network by having it on this private server. >> but he knew what he had on his server was marked from the very beginning of the moment as a classified piece of information. and what we now know from secretary clinton and also from now fbi director is that these are not, a, marked the way people think. they look at the tv shows and movies and see that big red stamp that says top secret. we have documents that are not marked -- >> some were, like the way -- >> you've clarified or released

the statement. >> it's not an easy way to clarify. >> so here's what happens in classification. you have an entire document that can have that very bright red mark on it or you have what are called sentences or paragraphs that have parentheses. they can say ts for top secret or uc for unclassified. it's my understanding the state department said the two documents about which mr. comey are referring to are call logs. they are not the meat of the -- >> petraeus' schedule when it was always considered classified and schedule was a part of the documents he'd taken out. >> you can take from the whole bunch of petraeus material and say, you see, you see, it's the same, except he also provided the names of people that were covert and other material and he did it to somebody outside the network, somebody writing his biography with whom he had a relationship. let's go back to what i

understand the state department is making clear. whatever was marked on those two call lists are a tiny parenthesis which is a "c" which is not the traditional way of doing an entire document. i'm not sure if it was noticed but it shows you the fault in all of this which is that we have call lists the state department now says shouldn't have been classified to begin with. how do you bring a case against somebody when it's clear that the material shouldn't have been classified to begin with? >> has this set a precedent? if you are a defender of now somebody in a classified material, has he -- has director comey said a new bar? >> i think not only has he not set a new bar. his decision is consistent with all the bars presently set. i am, by the way, chagrin to say because i represent people charged in this area. i see the difference clearly. and i've already identified one difference. and there's another difference. and that difference is, besides to whom the material is disclosed and how it was marked, the issue of whether or not

there is, i don't know, i heard chairman chaffetz say that it was -- what's the difference between -- >> gross negligence and -- >> that's just applying the state of mind to some other conduct. what's the conduct? here it was not disclosing to someone out of the network. second of all, it's not handling it the way mr. deutch did outside of his building on a laptop or in a way which, by day one, has classified material already marked on it. there are differences. those who want to criticize the secretary on the law will say, what about the state of mind of negligence. but then they miss the front part. and if you miss the front part, then talking about whether this was reckless doesn't mean anything because it doesn't attach itself to conduct. >> one of the things director comey talked about, punishment that could still be out there. if the state department wants to punish either her or some of her staff for how they handled classified, that is wholly up to them. it's out of the justice department but he didn't -- that

is up to them. what are some of those punishments. does that mean you don't get -- you don't get the clearance to read certain clarified -- >> what is that type of punishment? >> all types of punishments that's are administrative that the government has done from spending somebody's classification, downgrading their classification, docking -- >> you expect that behavior? >> the same sort of reasons. and you raise another point that is worthy of throwing out there. nobody has more respect for fbi director comey than i, you and you even saw chairman chaffetz. >> that's one of the few things we can agree on. >> from an constitutional point of view, i'm uncomfortable when people in law enforcement opine on something other than their legal charge. in other words, law enforcement decides has been there a violation of law and is there enough evidence to bring a case. i'm always uncomfortable when prosecutors or investigators go, and even though i've decided that, i have a feeling that what

somebody did is not right, it's not good. >> you thought it was inappropriate? you thought he went too far? wasn't it a unique circumstance where given the nature of our politics, he had no choice but to do that? >> i don't know about that because of the reason you and the chairman just said. we're in a political campaign n the voters will decide who they want to vote for. they have the facts, and you are reporting the facts and they can decide whether they like her conduct, judgment or donald trump's this or that. that's what elections are about. law enforcement officials should opine on whether the law has been violated and if there's enough evidence to bring a case. >> abbe lowell representing secretary clinton here, thank you. a legacy of war. what will the next president inherit in afghanistan. think about this. a third president is now going to manage the war in afghanistan. two managed world war ii. two managed vietnam. two managed korea. you get my point. we'll get unique perspective about the challenges ahead from a kabul native and former

american ambassador. big news in the veepstakes, including the motivation behind bob corker's vp brush-off. >> first of all, i have always thought that i'm better suited for other kinds of things. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ take on any road with intuitive all wheel drive the nissan rogue, murano and pathfinder. ♪

americans are buying more and more of everything online. and so many businesses rely on the united states postal service to get it there. that's why we make more ecommerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. the united states postal service. priority: you

there's been fast-moving developments today and rapid responses from political leaders following the fatal shooting of a black man by two baton rouge police officers. the department of justice announced a civil rights investigation today. the fbi in louisiana will also be involved. and here's what we know. police officers were dispatched early yesterday morning after a call about a disturbance outside a convenience store. according to the baton rouge police chief, when they arrived, two officers confronted 37-year-old alton sterling and things escalated. the incident was caught on a cell phone by a witness from inside a car. i want to warn you, it may be disturbing to some of our viewers. the two police officers wrestle

sterling to the ground. seconds later, someone can be heard saying, he's got a gun followed by audible gunshots. the baton rouge police chief said sterling was, in fact, armed but there are still questions about what happened. louisiana governor john bell edwards held a news conference this morning on this incident. >> the footage that i observed of the video that was made available, i have very serious concerns. the video is disturbing, to say the least. i have full confidence this matter will be investigated thoroughly, impartially and professionally. i know there are protests going on and i'm urging everyone to remain peaceful. >> the president of the naacp called the video hard to watch but far harder to ignore. they called for both the police chief and mayor to step down. the mayor called for transparency in this investigation. >> we are not here to hide anything at all and that we

believe that justice will be served. we want to make sure that we ensure the integrity of this investigation. that's why i'm happy to see the justice department step in. >> the mayor also thanked mayor stephanie rawlings to offer her support. the two officers have been identified at blaine salimoni and howie lake. they've been on the year for four years and three years respectively. they've been placed on administrative leave, which is standard procedure. they'll look at whether they violated sterling's civil rights by using unreasonable or excessive force. given everything that's happened on this front over the last two years, the speed with which political lead irs responded to this one almost to make sure they got it right before forced to get it right, shall we say. we'll be right back. s on

this company's servers. accessible by thousands of suppliers and employees globally. but with cyber threats on the rise, ma's data could be under attack. withhe help of at&t, and security that senses and mitigates cyber reats, theicritical data is safer than ever. giving them the agility to be open & secure. because no one knows & like at&t.

instead of going down to 5,500 troops by the end of this dwleerks united states will maintain 8,400 troops in afghanistan into next year through the end of my administration. >> america's longest war got an extension today. now it will be up to president obama's successor to decide what america's end game in afghanistan will look like. president bush first ordered air strikes in afghanistan almost 15 years ago. less than a month after 9/11. president obama had hoped to be the president thattened the war in afghanistan. but over the years, he's been forced to do just the opposite. in 2009, president obamarded a surge of 30,000 troops which he later called one of the most difficult decisions. 18 months later the u.s. began withdrawing those troops. about 10,000 at a time. in 2012, president obama promised the u.s. would end the combat mission in afghanistan by 2014. then in 2014, he said by the end of 2016 the u.s. military will only provide embassy presence in

kabul along with a security assistance component. by 2015, the administration's position changed yet again. 5,500 troops were to remain as a small number at the u.s. bases. and right now though the combat mission is officially over it will be roughly 8,400 u.s. troops remaining in afghanistan. the president said that number will stay the same through the end of his term which means this war will now span a third presidency. joining me now is a former ambassador to afghanistan, salmay kahlilazad, former ambassador to the united nations. welcome to the show. >> great to be with you, todd. >> let me start with the state of afghanistan today. the president, did he make the right decision? >> i would have preferred for him to leave the troops at the current almost 10,000 level, but compared to what he intended to

do earlier to reduce the force to 5,500, i think what he's done is good. and i support it. >> do you understand why -- is there a meaningful difference there when 9,800 -- it's an odd number. why 8,400? what's the significance of not having those extra 1,200 troops or 1,400 troops? >> i don't know what caused the president to reduce 1,400 given the recommendation from all of those who have served in afghanistan, military and civilian. and from what i understand, the recommendation from our military in afghanistan that they prefer to keep the current level but perhaps the president wanted to show progress in terms of reducing the footprint in afghanistan but his objective from the beginning has been to lower the numbers to, as you said, lower the presence to an

embassy level presence in afghanistan. but the situation is such that it requires a significant american presence for the foreseeable future. >> who governs afghanistan right now? >> well, there is a government that the unity government that governs kabul and a substantial part of afghanistan. another part is run by the taliban and there is then areas that go back and forth. so there has been progress because we used to have over 100,000 troops and it was a difficult situation. and now the afghans are taking the war, the afghan troops to the enemy. and our role has declined significantly but still very critical. >> the taliban definitely an enemy or not? i feel like we go back and forth about deciding whether to work with the taliban, and i feel the afghan government feels this way. sometimes they want to work with

the taliban. sometimes they want us to push them back. explain. >> the hope is that the taliban would join what's called a reconciliation process, a peace process and join the political process, give up on violence, on working with terrorist groups and accept the afghan constitution. and the administration has been hoping that pakistan which hosts the taliban, sanctuaries in pakistan, would bring the taliban to the negotiating ta e table, but this hasn't happened. if it's happened, the president would have reduced the force to 5,500. since this hasn't happened and what happened in iraq, the reduction or total withdrawal, cause a difficult situation to arise that we are still deal with and now increasing troops and the rise of daesh or isis has caused the product to adjust his approach. >> will the taliban be able -- i

guess what i'm asking here is, if we leave afghanistan, will the taliban have -- end up being either part of the current government or governing their own part of afghanistan? is this a permanent part of afghanistan that the taliban is either going to be with a coalition or governing its own part or are they going to have to be kicked out of the country? >> i think they will have to be defeated eventually if they don't reconcile and that defeat requires military force. afghan forces. we need to build up the afghan forces. they are, the less they need our presence and until that goal is achieved, we need to maintain a presence. so the taliban either will have to make piece or will have to be defeated. >> who is the -- is it isis or al qaeda that's a bigger threat inside of afghanistan, and is it

a safe haven for one more over the other? >> initially we kicked al qaeda out of afghanistan. they went to sanctuaries in pakistan where bin laden was killed. with the increased presence of taliban after the substantial reduction of forces, some al qaeda have come back, and there are some isis folks also, but i think al qaeda in afghanistan is the bigger threat than isis at the present. >> when do you think there will be no more u.s. troops in afghanistan? what should the public expect? >> we should expect we'll have a presence there for a long time, like we have a presence in south korea. we have a presence in germany because that -- >> when does it look like that versus do you -- when does it look like that versus -- >> sure. >> -- versus truly being in harm's way? >> that's obviously depends on when pakistan changes its policy, which means our dip loam aerks our strategy of isolating

them produce results. that means when afghan forces are capable, if we accel rats a build-up, they can do the job themselves. if we accelerate the build-up of the afghan forces or cause pakistan to change policy, it can happen in two to three years. >> well, you just said something that i don't know if we can get pakistan to do "x," but that sentence has been uttered on a lot of things with pakistan over the years. >> you're right about that. absolutely. >> ambassador kahlilazid, thank you. is newt beginnigingrich ris the veepstakes. is chris christie the front-runner? gingrich will be taking the stage with the donald later today. plus, breaking news from the sanders campaign. his reconciliation, is it actually possible? keep it right here. clean gets tough on dirt and grime

and grease in just a minute mr. clean will clean your whole house and every ro that's in it. floors, doors, walls, hall he so tough, he cleans'em all grimy tubs and tiles he'll do so your bathroom looks clean as new mr. clean gets tough on stuck-on stuff cleans kitchens in a minute. mr. clean will clean your whole house and every roomhat's in it. mr. clean, mr. clean, mr. clean! kellogg's® frosted 8 layers of wheat... and one that's sweet. for the adult and kid in all of us. ♪ kellogg's frosted mini-wheats® feed your inner kidult

on the hill and some big breaking news. andrea mitchell confirms the sanders campaign is in new talks with the clinton campaign on the long-awaited endorsement. it seems it is likely to unfold perhaps as early as tuesday of next week. for the past 30 days, it had not been clear what it would take to move sanders to not just concede but endorse. well, today on the hill, he praised clinton for her new affordab ablable college tuitio. it's something that looked and sounded more like a sanders plan than ever before because it would mean some increased amount of people that would quote/unquote get free college tuition, not just community college. that apparently might be enough to get him off the fence. maybe the big unity event is next tuesday. something that's at least being talked about. some veepstake surprises on the republican end. who is in, who is out?

first the cnbc market wrap. >> stocks rise across the board. the dow climbs 78 points. the s&p adds 11. and the nasdaq is up 36. minutes from the federal reserve's june meeting show policymakers decide to keep rates steady pending the uk's brexit vote. they also cited a slowdown in hiring. mortgage applications surged last week jumping more than 14%. refinancings were up 21%. and the trade deficit widened more than expected in may. that's as imports of chinese electronics rose. that's it from cnbc, first in business worldwide.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ take on any road with intuitive all wheel drive the nissan rogue, mura and pathfinder. ♪

back now with my map of the day. it's an important update on battleground tv ad spending.

oh, my, wait until you see this. hillary clinton and her allies are on the air in nine of the battleground states. you see them. donald trump and his supporters up in six. but this map doesn't tell the whole story. clinton is greatly outpacing trump on the air waves, state by state, even where they're up against each other. soy for instance, florida, $12.3 million to $78,000. ohio, $9.1 million to $413,000. nevada, seven digits to five digits. north carolina, one of the newer battleground states. clinton spending $4 million, team trump, zero. in colorado, iowa, disparities in new hampshire, pennsylvania. clinton and her allies are spending about $42.8 million in reserve time. trump and his backers not quite as $1 million just in these battleground states. they've done a cable buy but not in the battleground states. clinton is out early and often, what obama did.

romney followed suit in '12. trump hasn't been able to do it. does this mean clinton will be able to define herself or redefine herself, which is what she needs to do, and define trump before republicans have a chance to counter? maybe trump is already defined as well. we'll be back after this. hear it all... and feel it all... all summer long. ♪ jeep renegade -- it's how we live 4 by 4 summer. ♪

i've always thought that i'm better suited for other kinds of things. his best running mate would be

ivanka. that wouldn't pass muster probably. >> would you not want to be an attack dog? >> i don't know if they were necessarily looking for an attack dog. he does pretty well on his own. >> that was senator bob corker giving the trump ticket a test run last night in north carolina. apparently decided not to buy the car. officially corker said no thanks to finishing the event for the number two spot so he pulled his name out of consideration. corker says he'll still offer to informally advise the campaign on matters of foreign policy. his veepstakes list got shorter. besides corker, later today when sources told nbc news that joni ernst also has decided to pull herself out of the vetting process. she does not see herself as a potential running mate but it won't keep her off the big stage in cleveland. she'll attend the convention and have a top speaking slot. chris christie, mike pence and newt gingrich are considered the top three contenders.

you can decide what you think with one or two or three is. gingrich's trial goes public tonight when he joins trump at a rally in cincinnati. contenders are jumping at the chance to get on this ticket. here he is. >> i'm actually looking at ten people and three or four called me up. very big names, senator and governors and all, and they want to be considered. we have about ten people. some names that haven't surfaced yet, who have actually called me. a lot of people are calling me that you wouldn't think about. they want their names thrown into the hat. so i asked about adding once-daily namenda xr to her current treatment for moderate to severe alzheimer's. it works differently. when added to another alzheimer's treatment, it may improve overall function and cognition. and may slow the worsening of symptoms for a while. (announcer) namenda xr doesn't change how the disease progresses. it shouldn't be taken by anyone allergic to memantine, or who's had a bad reaction

to namenda xr or its ingredients. before starting treatment, tell their doctor if they have, or ever had a seizure disorder, difficulty passing urineliver, kidney, or bladder problems, and about medications they're taking. certain medications, changes in diet, or medical conditions may affect the amount of namenda xr in the body and may increase side effects. the most common side effects are headache, diarrhea, and dizziness. all my life, he's protected me. ask their doctor about once-daily namenda xr and learn about a free trial offer at namenedaxr.com.

♪ americans are buying more and more of everything online. and so many businesses rely on the united states postal service to get it there. because when you ship with us, your business becomes our business. that's why we make more ecommerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. the united states postal service. priority: you time with the lid.

we're going to talk a lot of veepstakes. jamil smith, charles cook and "the washington post" columnist catherine rampel. welcome to you all. mr. cook, i'm going to start with you. two people pulled out pulled ou. after doing a test drive, and what was interesting was, all of a sudden, you got the sense, oh-oh. this would be a story. people don't want to be with me. i'll make a call and say, no. i've got people waiting in line. what do you think is going on? >> i didn't think it went badly that joni ernst would be a good partner. i think she was told by everyone she knew, do not do this. i think possibly the same will happen with a great number of candidates. if you have a future in politics, especially -- >> you think it is -- i've said, some people in the republican party think donald trump is a stain that can be washed out. and some believe he is a tattoo. >> i think he is more of a

tattoo. at least, a henna tattoo that comes out over a period of time. he is going to hurt people who have a future if they stick with him. i think he is going to lose. i think he will say even more ridiculous things. whereas newt gingrich, maybe you roll the dice. you're finished anyway. >> where's the upside if your career is finished the prediction markets show that it doesn't look like trump is going to win. he's proven himself to be quite a loose cannon. if you join the ticket, you no longer have the option of cutting ties with him if he says something even more inflammatory. >> let me make the count argument. you want to run for president in 2020. you know that his message to trump supporters is pretty powerful and they're going to be a powerful force in the party. and you can say, hey, i was with you in sentiment, even though i thought he was a bad messenger. >> it is an interesting counter.

i think the demographic qualities that trump brings to the table simply are not the recipe for a winning constituency in 2016 or 2020. i'm looking at 25% of young people who support trump, 75% who would never vote for him. so you're already rolling out one big constituency. you don't want to attract people of color or anybody, republicans have been working for years to try entice back to the party. so if you associate yourself in a vp slot with trump, i think you're doing what charles is saying. you're writing your epitaph. >> i think veep is a step too far. i think you can play a clever game if you are a republican that won't denounce trump but also won't make speech after speech after speech? paul ryan. you think he found a line. >> yeah. he can come after this. people have short memories. you cannot be on the stage with

him in city after city, stand at the convention, have your names on the banners and then say i wasn't with him. >> i keep coming after chris christie. i think ultimately the idea that we can data it out, ultimately the candidate has to decide. and it sounds like he won't be comfortable with anybody that isn't loyal to him. >> that isn't sufficiently deferential. i would go beyond loyal to deferential. >> very well. i'll say loyal. fair enough. >> and i think that trump values a lot of qualities in christie that are not usually the values that a presidential nominee is looking for in a veep candidate. he doesn't really help him demographical demographically. >> doubled down. the government needs to get tough. you need strong personality to sort of make it work. >> and he is good tv. >> i hear that's important to trump. he doesn't want a bland -- like

mike pence makes the most sense of the people he's talking to. but i have heard that trump doesn't think pence has star power. >> i disagree. i think trump wants to keep the cameras on him. he wants to make sure that he is driving it. >> that's mike penalce. >> you have somebody who has executive experience, someone who is pretty much going to stay out of your way. and is not going to really challenge you as a candidate. or as i think gingrich, given his earlier criticism of trump for his comments about the judge. >> does him picking pence, which would be, look. there is a political maturity move here. it helps social conservatives. makes it so the convention is not a problem. would it sort of smut door. does that change your attitude about him at all? does that make you think he's grown at all?

>> no. it makes me think mike pence would want to be vice president. it doesn't tell you anything about trump. donald trump wants to be in an incredibly powerful position. i've said that i think hillary clinton is unfit for office. i think donald trump is unfit for office. has the threshold question. neither of them makes that threshold. donald trump will not be tempered. even if we, the amount of power that would be at his 'tis posal given his track record is unacceptable to me. he could pick the smartest, most brilliant, most well tempered man that has ever lived to be vice president and it shouldn't make a big difference. >> paul ryan didn't help mitt romney. i think we are overselling all this. >> i think the vice presidential candidate doesn't make big of a difference in the long run. people are caring about who will be in the office itself.

>> especially these two people. they're so well known. >> they're so polarizing. people have very strong feelings about both of them. it is hard to imagine that a vice presidential candidate, whoever that might be works dramatically change game. they might change it on the margin. >> do you believe the e-mail story with comey, does it change anything? i wondered today if mike mullin shot up the list a little bit. >> i think many fewer people care about that story than i think people in washington think. i think really, we have here is, you know, a story that doesn't really matter to a lot of voters that really concentrate on more important issues. >> we'll see if it matters. i hear you. thank you very much. we'll be right back.

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ take on any road with intuitive all wheel drive the nissan rogue, murano and pathfinder. ♪

we'll be back tomorrow with more. with all due respect starts 17 seconds later. >> with all due respect to hillary clinton, james comey had better material. >> his campaign said, let's sell off america's assets. where do we start? the statue of liberty? he wants to make america great again. maybe he should start by actually