this sunday morning donald trump, the russians and the 2016 election. the cia has concluded the russians intervened to help elect donald trump. who as a candidate praised vladimir putin. >> i think i would have a good relationship with putin. >> at issue, how did the russians interfere? why did they do it? to what extent did they succeed? i will talk to donald trump's incoming chief of staff reince priebus, the top democrat in the house intelligence committee adam schiff and the former u.s. ambassador to russia, michael mcfaul. plus, early reaction to donald trump's apparent choice for secretary of state, rex tillerson. the chief executive of exxon mobile who has a particularly close relationship with putin. >> a great advantage is he knows

many of the players and he knows them well. >> mike rowe will be here. >> i put our lives at risk. >> at what democrats can learn from donald trump on how to win over working class voters. joining me for insight and analysis are doris keargs goodwin, kimberly strasse whether and rick stengel. welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good sunday morning. when "the washington post" story about russian involvement in our election was posted online friday night, it was nothing less than explosive. the cia counsincluded the run s interfered.

further, in september, the white house wanted congressional leaders to sign off on a statement supporting efforts to support the integrity of the election. two republican lawmakers including mitch mcconnell ywas not persuaded and wouldn't sign on it it. this is not about the results of the election. it's about a hostile foreign government trying to influence our election. just as the russians had been accused of doing in germany and italy just in the last two weeks. as stunning as the conclusion, equally remarkable was donald trump's decision to side with the foreign government over our own chief intelligence agency. donald trump declared war on the intelligence community in a statement filled with hyperbole friday night. these are the same people that said saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. the election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest electoral college victories in

history. it's time to move on and make america great again. "the new york times" is reporting that intelligence agencies have concluded with high confidence that russian hacked the republican national committee computer systems but chose to leak only democratic party documents. and trump has consistently down played intelligence about russian hacking. >> it could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds. okay? >> meanwhile, he has publically flirted with putin numerous times. >> i was in russia. i was in moscow recently. and i spoke indirectly and directly with president putin who could not have been nicer. i think i would have a good relationship with putin. he has been a leader more than our president has been a leader. >> inviting russia to conduct espionage against hillary clinton. >> russia, if you are listening,

i hope you are able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. >> leading senate republicans are preparing to launch a probe into russia's involvement. >> if the evidence is what i think it will be, then we will have a bipartisan effort to sanction putin and his inner circle for their interference not only in our election but destabilizing the world. >> before he leaves office, president obama is looking into it, too. >> the president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election. >> the man who appears to be trump's choice for secretary of state rex tillerson has deep ties to putin. in 2013, the kremlin awarded tillerson the order of friendship, one of the highest honors for civilians. >> my relationship with vladimir putin, which dates back almost 15 years now, i've known sim since 199, and i have a very

close relationship with him. >> i believe that vladimir putin is a thug and a bully and murderer. and i believe that the relationship between mr. tillerson and vladimir putin needs to be examined. >> the former u.s. ambassador is mike mcfaul who was banned from russia for what he says are his close ties to president obama. welcome back to "meet the press." >> thanks for having me. >> tell us a little bit about why everyone is so convinced that what happened in the united states fits a pattern of what russia has been doing in other countries. >> well, because russia has this capability. and they're motivated for political purposes to do these kinds of things. what is really striking about the last 48 hours, of course, is that now the intelligence community is starting to directly give us news about the

way these dots are connected. remember, you and i have talked about this many times. we knew some things, like we were pretty certain about the dnc hacking by the russians. what we didn't have reported before was evidence that they gave that data to wikileaks. we also didn't have the data that you just described in your intro that they hacked the rnc, the republicans. those are pretty big new facts. and i think they demand real attention in terms of some kind of investigation. >> in your determination as somebody who obviously with deep knowledge of the russian system, what's putin's motivation? what does he get out of donald trump's election? >> you know, i think it's two things. one is revenge against secretary clinton. let's remember that vladimir putin thinks that she intervened in his election, the parliamentary election in december 2011. and has said as much publically. i heard him talk about it privately. number two, president-elect

trump supports a lot of foreign policy positions that vladimir putin supports. you just played several of them in your clips. right? so it's very rational in my view that he would rather see president-elect trump be the next president of the united states instead of secretary clinton. now, i want to add one thing here. sometimes people jump to the conclusion that this was somehow coordinated with president-elect trump. i don't believe that for a minute. but did the russians take some actions to try to help him? i think the evidence is circumstantial enough that we really do need this bipartisan, independent investigation that others are calling for. >> set aside the hacking aspect of this. any concerns you have about an administration, if rex tillerson is secretary of state, that wants to forth closer personal ties and closer ties with vladimir putin's russia? >> yes, to be honest, yes. now, when i was in the government, i supported exxon

mobile's work with the largest oil company there. we thought it was in america's national interest to strengthen economic ties. but then russia intervene ed in ukraine. they annexed crimea. and in my opinion, the obama administration rightly sanctioned russian companies, including the ceo of the oil company, exxon mobile's partner. we can't reverse those sanctions in the name of economic interest unless russia changes its behavior. so i want to learn more. i want to hear the hearings. i want to know what mr. tillerson thinks about a broad set of issues, not just energy ones but initially this is disturbing to me. >> mike mcfaul, former ambassador to russia under president obama and now from stanford university, thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. joining me now is the outgoing chairman of the republican national committee

and the incoming chief of staff for the president-elect, donald trump, it's reince priebus. welcome back to "meet the press." >> thank you, chuck. >> let me start with apparently a big announcement that may be coming this week, and that has to do with secretary of state and outgoing exxon ceo rex tillerson. the early reaction, not very good, mr. priebus. alarming and absurd, says the top democrat on senate foreign relations. john mccain, a matter of concern to me, referring to mr. tillerson's close relationship with vladimir putin. lindsey graham called the pick unnerving. is he definitely going to be the pick number one? how do you respond to the criticism? >> well, first of all, there is no announcement today on secretary of state. there won't be an announcement, i would assume, until maybe early to mid next week. and the president-elect is making a decision. and so he has a lot of great choices. and a lot of accomplished people. he has talked to a variety of

folks from as you know rex tillerson to mitt romney to rudy giuliani to david patraeus, bob corker and many others. you know, this sort of analysis is a little premature. but as to rex tillerson, he is one of the most preemmeant business people in the world. so i think that poking this prematurely is something that just isn't, number one -- it's not helpful, but it's also not accurate. i mean, this is a guy who has business relationships in every continent in the entire world. >> that's fine. but does that qualify him to be secretary of state? >> immediately, everyone is jumping the shark on this. >> does that qualify him to be secretary of state? >> sure. i think he is qualified to be secretary of state. absolutely. >> just having business deals, that qualifies him? >> it's not just business deals. an extensive knowledge of our

relationships across the globe and extensive knowledge of international law and extensive knowledge of how deals are put together in places of the world that are very sensitive and inter-governmental relationships that are very unique to rex tillerson. so, yeah, i think he is not just qualified, i thinkpreeminent in world. >> the united states government lobbied rex tillerson not to attend an event in russia earlier this year, sort of a global expo event that vladimir putin was hosting. and the united states government was hoping rex tillerson wouldn't go. he could. they didn't prevent him from going. but he put exxon's interests over and above the united states. do you understand why that would unnerve some people about the idea of him as america's chief diplomat? >> well, it might unnerve people

who think the best route for our country to go is to ignore people and to have an enemy list and adhere to that list. i just don't believe and neither does the president-elect that solving the world's biggest problems are best done by ignoring people and having crummy relationships across the globe. we just don't believe that talking to people and having relationships is a bad thing. >> should we expect that sanctions -- >> i would venture to guess that rex tillerson doesn't agree with that either. >> should we expect regardless of who is secretary of state that one of the first orders president-elect trump will do is lift sanctions against vladimir putin. >> not at all. i wouldn't go to any conclusion. the only conclusion you should have is that talking to people is something that president-elect trump is going to do. it doesn't mean that he is not going to be tough. it doesn't mean that we're not going to make sure that the

american position is always advocated for. the idea is to put america first, not just in the united states but america first across the globe. but these preconceived notions that how dare you cut a deal with the russian government because you need to have -- you need to go where the oil is at is absurd. of course, he is going to cut that deal. that's what rex tillerson did. but that doesn't mean that the positions of president-elect trump are not going to be extremely tough in putting america first. >> let me move to the reports in the washington post, "new york times," nbc news confirmed it the assessment from the cia is not only did russia interfere, make an attempt to interfere in the 2016 election to be disruptive but they actually were trying to be disruptive in order to help donald trump. the transition put out a statement that essentially he humiliated the cia in saying that donald trump didn't believe

the assessment from the cia because these are the same people that said there were weapons -- that issaddam hussei had weapons of mass destruction. does donald trump have confidence in america's intelligence? >> of course he has confidence in america's intelligence. but we don't have confidence in "the new york times" releasing a report of unnamed sources of some kind of study that itself and "the washington post" said was inconclusive to claim that because the cia had hacked e-mails of the dnc and rnc and only used rnc e-mails that meant russia was doing this. the rnc was not hacked. we had the fbi in the rnc. we have been working with the b fbi. hang on. no, the rnc -- >> explain why you had the fbi

there. >> the dnc was hacked. we called the fbi and they came in to help us. they came in to review what we were doing and went through every single thing that we did. we went through this for a month. we were not hacked. wait a second. if we were not hacked -- that is absolutely not true -- then where does that story lie? >> nobody with the -- let me ask you this. not a single person connected to the rnc was hacked? no republican vendor who had interaction with the rnc was hacked? you had a specific denial that the network wasn't hacked. that doesn't mean republicans associated with the rnc weren't hacked. do you rule cat gegorically rul this out? >> i don't know why you are so hot about this. the fact of the matter -- >> it's not about me. >> the rnc was not hacked. number one, the rnc was not

hacked. i don't know of any employee on any of the own g-mail accounts that was hacked. i'm trying to tell you, the rnc was not hacked. that was -- by the way, that was the specific allegation that was made in the actual "new york times" article. the article didn't say affiliates. the article didn't say -- wait a second. the article said the rnc was hacked. don't be defensive with me that i'm -- >> it's not -- >> i'm refuting the specific fact that was made in the article to create this entire firestorm. the specific fact as we have been told by the fbi repeatedly, including two days ago when we checked back with them about this issue, repeated the fact that the rnc was not hacked. you tell me where this story is at. why would the press run with something that wasn't true? >> let me ask you though about the cia's assessment. i understand you want a specific denial about the rnc.

the cia made this assessment. donald trump so ignored the assessment. do you not believe russia was involved? do you not believe anything that russia was attempting to infiltrate the u.s. election system in any way, shape or form? >> here is what i'm saying. number one, you don't have a single source -- i've given you a source specifically, me, who runs the rnc to say that the rnc was not hacked. you tell me who the specific source on the other side of this that says the rnc was hacked. okay. you say we covered that. >> my question is not about the rnc. reince, no, no, no. my question is about whether or not russia tried to infiltrate the -- our election in some way, shape or form. the hacking of the dnc, the hacking of john podesta. you don't believe -- you and donald trump do not believe russia was involved in that at all? that's what your statement said friday night. >> what i'm asking you, chuck,

is tell me what the specific source that you have other than a "new york times" article that claims that through unnape eunn sources who they say was inconclusive, what source are you using to be so adamant to get a response from me on something that doesn't have a source to it? what's your source? >> what you are saying is, until the cia comes out and produces somebody on the record, you are going to dispute this the entire time? >> no, i'm not -- i don't know whether it's true or not. if it is true -- >> you don't -- that means you do not believe the assessments of the u.s. intelligence community. >> wait a second. now you are circuitous here. >> i'm saying -- i'm asking you -- you guys have the sourcing. you are getting briefings on this. you have been briefed. the president-elect was briefed on this. it's clear you done believe it. i'm asking you why you don't believe it. >> number one, i don't have --

i'm not in those briefings, first of all. eventually, i will be. but the second thing i'm telling you is you have no source, no conclusive source that you are using other than a false article in the "new york times" somehow claiming -- >> you keep falling to the "new york times." you are ignoring "the washington post" report because you want to deny the rnc aspect. i understand that. >> i'm not. >> the conclusion had to do the cia's assessment -- do you believe -- let's clear this up. do you believe -- does the president-elect believe that russia was trying to muddy up and get involved in the election in 2016? >> number one, you don't know it. i don't know it. there's been no conclusive or specific report to say otherwise. that's the first thing. the second thing i would tell you is that you don't have any proof that the outcome of the o election -- forget who did the hacking. >> do you want to know? >> someone did the hacking. >> does president-elect trump want to know?

does he want to know. >> what specific -- of course we want to know. >> there's going to be an investigation. >> he wants an investigation? >> i don't know what investigations he wants. we do want to know. what i don't want to do is have a debate with you over an unnamed source that the article said was inconclusive over who haksed and why they hacked. someone hacked. we don't like that. i don't like it. no one wants it. we want to protect american interests. it's america first. i don't want the dnc hacked. i don't want anybody hacked. i don't know who did the hacking. that's my point. >> you dispute 17 intelligence agencies that have assessed that russia agents were behind this? you dispute this? >> chuck, this is insane. in the same article about the 17 agencies, it said it was inconclusive. >> it was inconclusive about vladimir putin, reince. it was not inconclusive that

russian agents were involved. there's a difference. i understand why you are trying to parse this. but there is a difference. do you not believe any of this? >> i don't know who did the hacking, chuck. the article is based on a lie that the rnc was hacked. so the entire premise of the article is false. the sources are unnamed. the report was inconclusive. i don't want anyone hacked. okay? the point is though, we need to find out more facts about this situation. then we can make intelligence decisions. you and i can have more intelligent conversation about what to do about it. >> reince priebus, we have to leave it there because of time. >> you bet. >> until we meet again. thanks for coming on. >> you bet. whethn we come back, 12 members of congress have seen the full cia assessment. we will hear from the top democrat, one of the 12, adam schiff of california. before we go to break, we have one final election result from 2016 to report.

louisiana held its senate runoff election yesterday to replace david vitor. republicans will hold on to the seat. john kennedy, no relation to the kennedy family, defeated foster campbell with nearly 61% of the vote. with that, we can now finally say officially, republicans will hold 52 seats in the next congress, democrats will many sleep-aids have pain medicine but zzzquil is different because why would you take a pain medicine when all you want is good sleep? zzzquil: a non-habit forming sleep-aid that's not for pain, just for sleep. why do people have eyebrows?i. why do people put milk on cereal? oh, are you reading why people? why does your tummy go "grumbily, grumbily, grumbily"? why is it all (mimics a stomach grumble) no more questions for you! ooph, that milk in your cereal was messing with you, wasn't it? yeah, happens to more people than you think... try lactaid, it's real milk, without that annoying lactose.

good, right? mmm, yeah. i got your back. lactaid. it's the milk that doesn't mess with you. you're so cold, come in! what's wrong? it's dry... your scalp? mine gets dry in the winter too. try head and shoulders' dry scalp care it nourishes the scalp and... ...keeps you up to 100% flake free head and shoulders' dry scalp care

ways wins. especially in my business. with slow internet from the phone company, you can't keep up. you're stuck, watching spinning wheels and progress bars until someone else scoops your story. switch to comcast business. with high-speed internet up to 10 gigabits per second. you wouldn't pick a slow race car. then why settle for slow internet? comcast business. built for speed. built for business.

welcome back. when the white house had intelligence about russia and the election to share with congress, they convened a gong of 12. these are house and senate members. one of those attending the meeting was congressman adam schiff of california. he heard the evidence that russia was trying to tip the scales in donald trump's favor. schiff is the top democrat in the house intelligence committee. welcome to "meet the press." >> thanks. >> i know you were listening to my interview with reince priebus, the incoming chief of staff. he was denying, was looking for sourced information that would somehow prove this allegation was not ready to accept the conclusions of the intelligence reports that say russia was at least trying to do something with this election. obviously, the cia went further. what can you share with us to prove something to reince priebus to say you are wrong on

this? >> first of all, i thought that interview was breath taking. there's no doubt that the russians hacked our institutions. you don't have the director of national intelligence making a public statement the way he did in october without there being a broad consensus of all the intelligence agencies. frankly, i don't know a democrat or republican who has heard the intelligence that would quarrel with those conclusions. i think that's fact one. the russians definitely -- this was not china, this wasn't a 400 pound guy in new jersey or anyone else. this was the russians. second, in terms of what the russians were after, they were after discord and in this they were successful. but it wasn't alone. they had a candidate with pro-putin, pro-russian views who belittled nato, who was willing to potentially remove sanctions on russia and by contrast they had in secretary clinton a candidate very tough on russia and who they blamed as ambassador mcfaul said for the

protest, the mass demonstrations against the corruption in the russian elections in 2011. you would have to believe -- i can't go into the classified information. but you would have to believe that the uniform nature of the hacking and the dumping of information that was damaging to secretary clinton and helpful to donald trump was both coincidental and accidental and the russians didn't know what they were doing to believe that they had no interest in helping one candidate that simply is not credible. >> i understand that. let me play devil's advocate here. this happened before with intelligence assessments, which is political figures essentially it's a form of confirmation bias. they only see the intelligence that supports a point of view they have going into it. is there any chance here this is confirmation bias on the intelligence community in general or on those folks that are interpreting the intelligence? >> no, i don't think so. i think the circumstantial evidence, which is all i could talk about publically, is so

profound that you would really have to believe that to accept reince priebus's argument that they aren't capable of hacking. the russians have demonstrated they can hack practically any government institution, any private institution. it's not a credible argument. the fact that we have a president-elect who is willing to disregard the overwhelming evidence on the basis of the russian involvement in the hacking of institutions, tells me this will be a president who will disregard even the best assessments of the intelligence community when it doesn't suit his own version of events. that is extraordinarily damaging. i will say one other thing. the reason that this russian campaign has so successful is that you have the rare specter of a presidential candidate and president-elect willing to give the russians cover. this is effective because the russians can put out on their tv and the sputnik that the

president-elect of the united states doesn't believe they were involved. that is so extraordinarily beneficial to russian propaganda. it what made this so powerful. and so damaging to us. >> let me ask you this. in "the washington post" story, apparently the president wanted to go public this w this information and wanted to have a bipartisan statement about it. apparently, two republicans and one of them is mitch mcconnell, objected to it. what can you say about that allegation in "the washington post"? >> well, i can say this. we certainly have had gang of eight and other briefings on this issue. we have had plenty of discussions both before the election and we have had briefings since thelection about the russian meddling and there wasn't a bipartisan agreement either before and i think we are seeing some bipartisan interest in investigating thereafter. but i can say this. there was really nothing prev t

preventing the administration on its own from being more declaratory in terms of what the intelligence showed. i have an urgent administration to be more forthcoming with the public. i think they should. i think we should work with our european allies to sanction this behavior. >> you think the decision to not come out as definitively before the election was a mistake by president obama? >> i do. i think it was a mistake earlier frankly not to react more forcefully when north korea hacked us. i think those kind of -- that lack of deterrence invited the russians to meddle and consider they could do this with impunity. i hope we will have a bipartisan joint investigation of the intelligence communities or a commission like my colleagues are proposing, this ought to be a non-partisan issue. this is not about re-litigating the election. it's about getting good information to the american people about what happened and preventing it and deterring the russians in the future. >> adam schiff, i are to leahav it there for time.

appreciate you coming on. coming up, we will have more on this evolving story about russia in the u.s. election, richl tillerson. later, someone who made a career of celebrating blue collar workers, mike rowe on why his shows and donald trump have been successful at the same time. perhaps what democrats and t thanks for loading, sweetie. ...oh, baked-on alfredo? ...gotta rinse that. nope. no way. nada. really? dish issues? throw it all in. cascade platinum powers through... your toughest stuck-on food. nice. cascade.

dobecause you've got ams lot of cheering to do! get fast sinus relief...with vicks sinex. and get your head back in the game. sinex. the congestion, pressure, pain to clear your head, medicine.

welcome back. it's panel time. rick stengel joins us. welcome be a to civilian life. kimberly, great to see you. doris and michael. let me start with the former rnc chair. first of all -- >> that was fun. >> it's clear that they want to -- that the trump folks want to zero in on this narrow question about whether the rnc

was hacked. a former head of the rnc, what do you know? >> what i do know is all the -- reince was right in terms of what the fbi has reported back to them, that there was no hacking, per se, of the rnc. that's been a very clear. i think where the cross was, was on the distinction between whether or not trump is going to accept the report of the cia that says that there was evidence that the russians were involved generally in this race. not necessarily specifically with hacking the rnc. there's no evidence of that. but with respect to their involvement, their fingerprint on this election, that's the question. >> look, there's two parts to this story. i can see this is why reince is unhappy. the first partwas russia involved in hacking institutions and generally creating discord. everyone can agree that happened. >> not everyone is agreeing to that. >> i understand. but what they are unhappy about and legitimately so is the piece

of the story for which there is no evidence this was done to aid donald trump. i spoke to intelligence officials. they got into the dnc site. they took information and obviously distributed it. they got on the rnc system. they weren't able to get information out. the idea this was done to help donald trump, that that's the evidence for this that they didn't put -- rnc information out, so this is them in favor of trump, that's not the question. >> the bigger question isn't about whether it impacted the election. we're having a dispute about the fact of russia's involvement. >> there's a global information war going on now. russia is the principal actor and the most malign actor. we have seen this from the state department for years. it's along a continuum. on the hard end is cyber terrorism and infiltration. the soft end is russia today and sputnik. candidate trump quoted russia today's stories and sputnik stories during the campaign. part of the idea is to undermine our institutions, undermine

democracy, question the election and, in fact, it's a victory for russia and putin that here today we are talking about it. >> who won? >> questioning the election. >> that's what they were trying to do. >> what's troubling is that to cast aspersions on the cia before you have taken the oath of office. he is going to have to use the professionals there. yes, they have made mistakes. they made mistakes but to bring that up right away, you are going to need those professionals. many of them have died for us. many of the men and women have done noble things that we may not know about. of course, they screw up at times. to use this example -- i don't see -- there's nothing wrong with them saying they hacked us and yet i won the election. nobody is saying he wouldn't have won anyway. >> actually, people are. you have to put -- >> that's a broader context. >> there are people staging recounts. there are people suggesting in "the new york times" that maybe he only won this because russia interfered with the election. by the way, what makes more sense? i was struck by representative

schiff saying, this just isn't credible. we're saying the russians did this to help elect donald trump, we're saying the russians were the only people in the whole world who knew that donald trump was going to win -- had a possibility of winning this election. even the trump campaign didn't think this. what makes more sense? they did this because they assumed that hillary clinton would be the president. this was a way of delegitimizing what they thought would be her presidency. >> let's go to rex tillerson. it seems an odd time to push this idea. it's very trumpian. there's something personally about rex that appeals to him. i have talked to people close to him. i get -- there's a lot that he likes about him. it seems a lot for the political system to handle the day after the cia comes out with this assessment, vladimir putin's buddy. >> there's a little indigestion there for the political folks. >> can he survive this? >> i think he can. i think from donald trump's perspective, back to your point, he likes this.

he likes this pot being stirred the way it's being stirred, because he gets to see the meddle of the individual's involved. he gets to amerimeasure the si z circumstances. tillerson is someone he really likes. i don't think this scares him off of tillerson. i think for donald trump, this is an opportunity to double down on that and to double down on the conversation about the russian's involvement. >> but what i would say is rex tillerson -- our diplomacy is not about transactions. it's not about cutting better deals. our diplomacy is about alliances. we have a candidate who undermined the power of nato, article 5, one for all and all for one. we have a secretary of state in rex tillerson who has this personal relationship, which is fine. but if it is just about cutting deals, then that's not what our diplomacy is about. >> but actually, it is. in a real sense, those

relationships are based on transactions. >> they are but -- >> the way the american people see the transactions over the last 15, 20 years has resulted in a lot of bad policy. >> over and over i've been in the room with the secretary of state where he is with foreign ministers and heads of state. you know what he talks about? freedom of speech, religion, diversity, tolerance. those are the issues that we talk about. it's not just about cutting deals. >> i think what's so important about the secretary of state role is that right now we have got a lot of generals in the administration, which i think is a great thing. they no leadership more than anybody else. we have more respect for the military than anyone else. they will not send people into battle as easily as they need to. you need the civilian/military balance. the secretary of state role is more important. >> you have to land this at some point. we have to go to commercial break. terrific conversation. when we come back, we will switch topics. we will talk about wha hey team, i know we're tight on time, but i really need a... ...sick day tomorrow.

moms don't take sick days. moms take nyquil severe: the... ...nighttime sniffling,sneezing, coughing, aching, fever best... ...sleep with a cold, medicine. pain from a headache whecan make this...d, feel like this. all-in-one cold symptom relief from tylenol®, the #1 doctor recommended pain relief brand. tylenol® when you have a cold, pain from chest congestion can make this... feel like this. all-in-one cold symptom relief from tylenol®, the #1 doctor recommended pain relief brand. tylenol®

are my teeth yellow? have you tried the tissue test? ugh yellow. what do you use? crest whitestrps. crest 3d whitestrips whiten 25 times better than a leading whitening toothpaste i passed the tissue test. oh yeah. crest whitestrips are the way to whiten.

welcome back. we want to remember astronaut and senator john glenn who died this week. he was on "meet the press" at least a dozen times, including after his second time into space in 1998. >> it's so beautiful up there. you can't help but look out and you get teary-eyed looking out and appreciating the beauty of where we live here. you can't help but wonder when you fly over places like the mideast that we have so many man made problems in that area that have gone on for centuries, why

we can't get together on this beautiful home that we call earth and really solve some of these problems here. hey team, i know we're tight on time, but i really need a... ...sick day tomorrow. moms don't take sick days. moms take nyquil severe: the... ...nighttime sniffling,sneezing, coughing, aching, fever best... ...sleep with a cold, medicine.

but zzzquil is different have pain medicine because why would you take a pain medicine when all you want is good sleep? zzzquil: a non-habit forming sleep-aid that's not for pain, just for sleep.

welcome back. joining me and the panel is mike rowe. you may know mike from his series on the discovery channel "dirty jobs." he has written a post that has gone viral in which he says it's no coincidence that donald trump got elected at the same time

that "dirty jobs" is successful. welcome to "meet the press." >> thanks for having me at the grown-up table. it's a big day for me. >> thanks for not posing. you are in what we want to see you in, no tie. >> all my suits are rubber. >> you know, you wrote this has been about -- this election in many ways has been about the sort of -- what feels like the forgotten middle class, blue collar jobs. you wrote, what will that mean -- you wrote this in your facebook -- excuse me back in february 15, it seems clear companies are responding to rising labor costs by embracing automation faster than ever. we know what it means. they feel desperate. >> yeah. the greatest threat to freedom was total anarchy. the second was total efficiency. there's a pretty interesting conversation about meaningful

work, i think. honestly, it's a bit beyond my pay grade on "dirty jobs" the big lesson was there's an awful lot of people who are doing really important work who nobody really pays affirmative attention to. when we showed up and started do that, the conversations that came out of that were really interesting. now with the benefit of hindsight, somewhat press yent. we were hearing things at the network that were uncannily familiar to the conversations we were heari ining around the gop. we didn't have the show on discovery that anybody thought would be a hit. and yet dozens of shows have emanated from that very thing. there are a lot of parallels. >> when i went to a working class county in michigan, i was talking to a guy that runs a fast growing manufacturing thing. he had this to say to me about the whole exercise of job

retraining and what it means for somebody in their 40s. >> if you've been on this floor doing work and you are 40 years old, you don't want to go do a computer job. you want to make things. that's part of the problem. you can have thousands of really good training programs. but the training needs to be the vocational. then there has to be the job openings. >> we always focus on job retraining. it's always about computers. it's always about -- it's about engineering. nothing wrong with that. but it's almost as if we're saying, those other jobs, they are going away. it's okay. some people want to touch things. >> people ask me all the time, what's the big takeaway from the show? and there were many. for me, the thing i keep coming back to is the idea that as a group, there was a level of job satisfaction that was undeniable and surprising. it has to do with the ability to complete a task. people with dirty jobs by and large -- hate to generalize, they always know how they're doing every step of the way.

we have almost taken that out of work today. your desk i'm sure it's beautiful, but it probably looks a lot at 5:00 p.m. as it does -- you don't have visual cues. >> you touched on this. one of the things that got lost in the campaign is the difference between automation and globalization. everybody is accusing globalization of the thing that lost our jobs. when i was at "time" we did a story on a factory in upstate new york. 5,000 people making batteries. now it had 20 people making -- even more than it was before. that's not about -- people do lose their jobs because of automation, not globalization. >> yeah. i wouldn't deny it. i would also say at the same time the thing that gets left out of the conversation is the fact that there are 5.8 million jobs available right now. we have a lot of people out of work and many more out of the work force specifically. 5.8 million jobs in the skills gap lasse has to tell us someth about opportunity.

our enthusiasm for work, our desire to find a job that may not be our wish fulfillment but jump into it with both lands and see where it takes us. >> it shows that this dignity that these people feel toward their jobs. job is more than just how you pay your bills and what you are doing for your family and what kid can go to college. it's what you feel when you go to work every day. somehow i think that's what mr. trump was able to tell the story to those people saying i'm going to make america great again, whether it's real or not to bring back some of the manufacturing jobs. he made people feel connected. that's what a politician does. emotionally connects with the feelings you are feeling. i think your show shows that. >> i call it the -- it's a wonderful life phenomenon where if you look at somebody's job, one of the best ways you can pay an honest attribute is imagine the world they are in without that job. the minute you see he that, the sewage worker, garbage person, all of it gets elevated.

but it's very much for sale today. it's real. >> how much of this is our education system and also our leaders in that the message these days to every kid is, if you don't go to four-year college that somehow -- we got rid of vocational training. the smartest people i knew -- i grew up in a blue collar community. smartest people, almost all are skilled tradesmen. they knew that's what they wanted to do, were good as as well. >> you have to be a generalist when you are in that world. the age of the specialist, the generalist gets short -- farmers need to run electric and hang drywall and do all of these things. that doesn't take a small brain. $1.3 trillion in student loans. we're pushing the same path for the most people as though it really is some sort of panacea. the 5.8 million jobs, 70% don't require the four-year degree.

somewhere between knowledge and enlightenme enlightenment, education and basic intelligence, we need a pr campaign for the jobs that actually exist. >> i want to end on that note. that was what i took away from you in our conversation, which is, let's celebrate work. let's celebrate all -- these jobs, make people feel better about working some of these jobs. >> dirty job is a good job. >> absolutely. >> mike rowe, this was great. >> thanks for having me. >> hope we can have you back again. >> i will be back next week. >> because if it's sunday, it's mike rowe. this is a dirty job. it's a different type of dirt. we will be back with end game. we will talk about donald trump has been saying about russian involvement in the election just this morning. hey girlfriend, how's your cafe au lait? oh, it's actually... sfx: (short balloon squeal) it's ver... sfx: (balloon squeals) ok can we... sfx: (balloon squeals) i'm being so serious right now... i really want to know how your coffee is. it's... sfx: (balloon squeals) hahahaha, i had a 2nd balloon goodbye! oof, that milk in your coffee was messing with you, wasn't it? yeah.

happens to more people than you think. try lactaid, it's real milk, without that annoying lactose. mmm. good right? yeah. lactaid. it's the milk that doesn't mess with you. mapping the oceans. where we explore. protecting biodiversity. everywhere we work. defeating malaria. improving energy efficiency. developing more clean burning natural gas. my job? my job at exxonmobil? turning algae into biofuels. reducing energy poverty in the developing world. making cars go further with less. fueling the global economy. and you thought we just made the gas. ♪ energy lives here.

we are back now with end game. donald trump has been talking this morning. we have been learning he is still not acknowledging this russian involvement, doesn't believe it. is there a danger here that they are overdenying? >> i don't think there is any problem in acknowledging that russia would like to destabilize this country and took actions to do so and to express you're rage about that. >> why isn't he doing that? >> again, because i think this story as it was presented this weekend mixed up these questions of whether or not russia was involved, but also the suggestion that somehow that made his election ill legitimate. that is what they are pushing

back against. there's a benefit to them of separating it out. >> i think they will. i think they will get over this hurdle. they will make their case about -- as we saw reince do this morning. but i think at the end, they will because the tillerson nomination potentially will force them to. >> doris, go bigger picture for me here as you are better at than anybody, which is to have a president-elect go after the cia like this. presidents and the cia have had disputes before. it usually doesn't bubble up this public. >> nixon had enormous hostility toward the cia. but he knew the cia knew he had been trying to win his election by having a back channel talk with the south vietnamese to stop peace talk talk s johnson to start. he promises or his campaign did that if do you there deal, will give you a better deal. he never said anything. obviously, they -- as i said before, the cia has made mistakes. but they have done extraordinary things. they are professionals.

you have to work with them. a lot will be there. what does it do to morale to do this? i hope he pulls back on the cia and mentioning wmb. >> i think that larger issue -- we have been nibbling around -- there's this information threat to the u.s. and a lot of it comes from russia. what are we going to do about it? what happened when the berlin wall fell is it was the end of history for us. we retreated. the russians realized, the wall fell without firing a shot. it fell because of the information revolution that the u.s. pioneered. they started building up. they started building up television stations throughout the periphery. they started all of these places. this is now a threat to us. you don't have to invade a country if you control its information space. >> given -- >> we have forgotten about the cold war. that's part of the problem. not me but others are young. >> not john mccain. >> and not vladimir putin. >> it's important to remember, it's a long history. we have an adversary there. this is a direct attempt by what was an adversary, still is, to hack our system.

>> what are you going to do? >> you have to do something about it. >> what does the obama administration that has been pushing to get into the public about russia's involvement, what does it do between now and inauguration of the incoming administration? that becomes the big question for the trump administration once that -- if obama does something, do they continue that or do they do something different? >> you talked about picking a fight with the cia. there's a difference between picking the fight with the agency or with the unnamed leadership that is putting out some of this information, which i'm sure if you are in the trump camp does seem to be highly political to a certain degree. >> i will leave it there. what a show. what a week. i feel like i say it every week, which i'm sure we will. that's all we have for today. the two-hour special that i would always love to have, we can't make happen. we will be back next week. because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press."

ms. quevas, do you want to explain to me why i should not put you in prison? >> i'm tired of getting high. >> and you weren't tired when i gave you a five-year prison sentence before? >> a drug addicted mother asks a judge to keep her out of prison. >> could you call my dad and tell him to look for someone who has collateral? >> just brought in on drug charges, a young man attempts to make bail. >> just hung up. >> while another awaits sentencing for an unthinkable