when he realized he would not do the news cycle. >> we will see how long he can keep going. in morning, mtpdale we chuck todd starts now. >> if it's tuesday, another kremlin connection is making waves in the trump transition. tonight, why the president-elect could be his own one of the enemy in confirming his pick for secretary of state. plus, another postponement. just when we thought we might hear from donald trump about his business dealings, he cancels his news conference. when will he address his conflicts of interest? in case you missed it, the house benghazi committee closed its doors. a spectacularly successful failure. this is mtpdaley and it starts right no

a russian cloud hangover his pick of rex tillerson for secretary of state. a pick cheered by mitch mcconnell and condi rice and jim baker would set to sail through confirmation. in a normal world we would be talking about the merits as secretary of state for having not having government experience and things like that. this is not a normal world. the nomination is likely going to be a referendum on trump's russia fixation and his denials on what russia wanted to do in this country. till errson's ties to putin are not going to help.

lifting them would have meant billions at the time. he did north a deal and they said they were an order of friendship. the state gives it him out to foreign civilians. he said i have concerns about what we do with a butcher, a murderer and a thug. marco rubio said i have serious concerns about his nomination. he noted a friend of vladimir is not part of his secretary of state criteria. lindsey graham said if you received an award from the kremlin, we will have some talking. democrats may only need three votes to kill the nomination. also some of tillerson's

endorsements come with an asterisk. i'm not making this up. the law firm is rice, hadley and gates. exxon is a baker's law firm too. all of that said, where would we be today if even last friday when the report came out in "the washington post" of what the cia believed the russians were up to in their cyber attacks of the country, where would we be today with tillerson's nomination if donald trump said these are serious allegations and they deserve further investigating. we might be in a different place. i'm joined by bob corker, the committee chair and himself a top contender to be secretary of state. welcome back, sir. >> always good to be with you and i'm glad you have plenty of material. >> always do. that's for sure. let me ask you this. are you at this moment ready to

say i'm ready to confirm rex tillerson? >> well, chuck, that's why we have hearings. to go through the process. as you know the first thing that happens is you sit down one on with the nominee for a good period of time and go around the world and talk about things that matter relative to confirmation. i will say this is a very distinguished impressive individual who has run a global enterprise. i think you know that most of the ceos that run global enterprises are secretaries of state for their companies. he knows the players well. he has a working knowledge. exxon has about 70,000 employees and the state department has 75,000 employees. it's a large operation. there is that side of it. he should be fully equipped to deal with. he comes with a lot of heft.

president-elect trump did a great job going through the process. i was honored to be a part of it. rex tillerson is a capable individual. people are as you mentioned all of us are going to want to understand his world view. most people think the secretary of state carries out their own policy. they carry out the president's policies, but he shapes it. he is under the hood and giving advice to the president before they decide what's what that's going to be. most members want to understand. what is the relationship to russia and how do you see the u.s.'s in the world. there will be tough questioning, but someone of his stature would be able to handle those. you comfortable if the look is he does know him personally and he thinks friendly relations are possible? if that's his answer, it's not great politics for him that there is video of him toasting

with vladimir putin. it's one of the things that can get taken out of context, but it isn't -- a lot of lawmakers like yourself have been telling us for years how bad of a guy vladimir putin is. >> i think he demonstrated that. i don't think there is much debate there. someone called today and one of the senators who will be on the committee. they said look, i understand that it's easy to negotiate as a ceo deal where country is going to make money and you are going to make money. at the end of the day, if both are going to come out whole, it's sometimes easier than when diplomatically that's not it is case. people will want to explore that. look, i don't hold it against someone that they have relationships that can in fact in many cases establish a level of trust.

do i like what russia is doing with the baltics or in crimea or eastern ukraine or what happened in syria? i don't. by the way, their purposeful destabilization of europe and by the way, trying to discredit or great democracy over the things you heard of earlier. all those things are nepharious. they are not to be tolerated. the question is does he share that point of view? people are going to be asking and i know he will be prepared for that. >> let me ask you this. a lot of republicans beat uph l uphilluphil hillary clinton. why is rex tillerson's case different? >> well, i mean in his case he was representing a company and shareholder interest. you can have a global operation as was said earlier by someone else, look, unfortunately a lot that exists in the world is

controlled by people that in many cases we don't like much. so that was his job. i'm sure if confirmed, he will have no interest in exxon and his interest will be our national interest. he won't be in a situation where he is dealing with snag there is no way this can happen. again, i'm not speaking to the veracity of the other charges, but that's a different scenario. >> philosophically as you run the confirmation hearing, how much -- and i will ask you your vote. every senator will look at it differently. are you assessing the ability to be secretary of state or also voting on whether you affirm the president's view, say towards

russia? >> i think it bleeds together. people generally try to give the president on both sides of the aisle, try to give him the ability to nominate his own people. people do want to assess whether he is qualified or not. but at the end of the day, chuck, the other issues do bleed in. i know in cases of my own when i affirmed not news, cases where i knew the person was qualified. i didn't necessarily agree with their views, but in many cases tilted to the fact that they were qualified and the president has the ability and elections matter. >> you have voted against folks that you thought were qualified and you thought bridged too far on some issues. >> there have been cases and i

can't point to any right now, but i have to believe there have been cases where i thought this person was so out in left field, i couldn't bring myself to support them. that's the kind of thing, by the way, that people will be looking at here. again, i got a call from a senator, multiple calls, there may be senators who feel the close relationship he has with russia is a killer. i have to believe when you have secretary rice and dick cheney and you have bob gates. all are people who look at russia very clear-eyed. they represent him. i have a feeling they know something about how he views russia. i have to believe it's probably not out of the mainstream. we'll see. he will be up to be able to share the views with you and all

of us. >> do you believe that russia as a state sponsored attempt to disrupt the election, maybe there is disagreement about whether the russians were trying to elect trump or not, but there seems to be universal agreement in the intelligence community that the russians were doing something. >> i believe based on what i know today we will find out a lot more as soon as we get back. the senator and myself will have a review of this. yes, i believe that putin did what he could to try to discredit the democratic process and in doing so, he wins. anything he can do to get the american people -- >> do you think he already won? >> i think he's had a victory just by the conversation that you and i are having right now. that people have discussions about was there any impact?

anything you can do when you are an awe thouthoritarian like put doesn't have real elections, when you can show we have tried to prove it anyway. we have fallacies that our process doesn't work and when he gets americans believing that possibly there is integrity issues there, that's a victory for him and of course that is something that someone like putin would attempt to do. >> why y do you think the president-elect is so adamant that none of this is true? >> i don't know what he is adamant about. i have seen tweets and i happen to have tremendous respect for the intelligence community. you can get conflicting reports and the office of director of national intelligence views this differently than the cia. the fbi because they are more in

a kremlin investigation mode in many cases, they look at it in a different way. i think that there is universal belief that russia has been involved. to what extent whether they were trying to tilt it to one person or another is where they separate. we are going to go through an indepth review ourselves. i think the committee and the armed services committee will do the same. hopefully we will get to a place where we have unanimity. do i think they tried to sow confusion? absolutely and they have been successful in doing so. >> bob corker in these confirmation processes, always a pleasure, sir. >> thank you, chuck. >> staff writer with the atlantic and urban radio

networks and at mama's knee, others at race in black and white and the editor in chief at the washington free beacon. it was interesting there. bob corker does not sugar coat. he doesn't think this is a slam dunk. that did not sound like a chairman who said slam dunk. the senator called me about x and another about y. this is going to be a lift. >> absolutely. i think he was frankly and honestly representing the divisions in the caucus. i respect him for that. he was honest about the fact that there are senators who want to reflect to support trump. a lot of them want them to support trump. a lot of other senators who have qualms. i thought one of the first statements they made was a remarkable interview. one of the first was the most telling. we don't know his world view. >> he himself said it. >> we don't know what this person believes.

he is going to be our chief lip lo mat if confirm and a lot of these hearings will be about the connections and the relationships and so on. more than anything, what does he believe with foreign policy and in a party that is so divided? a president-elect and they are going to want to know what rex tillerson, how he sees the world. >> chuck, this is beyond the business of oil. oil is a necessity and he dealt with russia and china. >> he has the knowledge set that you want any secretary of state to have. >> the issue is diplomacy and the issue is governance. >> diplomacy without money. it's alwayser when you have cash. >> you go back to the w years. the george w. bush years when oil was a commodity they were talking about when we went into iraq. it brings it back full circle.

is it about governance and dealing with foreign affairs and oil or is it about putting someone who knows the international players and can deal? it makes you wonder the questions. >> i go to one of the top things you and i were talking about. is this a confirmation about rex tillerson's qualifications or donald trump's world views? >> everything in washington for the next four years will be about donald trump. what will change given what episode of the show we are on. >> this is episode 20, the tillerson years. >> it's an easy no vote for democrats. >> on some parts of the environment on climate. >> the republican attitude is going to be reagan. trust, but verify. they will trust the president's prerogative in appointing the people they want. they will trust the figures that corker mentioned. rice, hadley, baker, gates,

cheney. they want to see verification. tiller is able to talk about issues that don't fall under the purr perview. >> trump's defiance on the intelligence committee is almost letting -- that's where lindsey graham and can dig in their heels. >> trump's friendliness towards russia is one of the few things he was rock solid on. >> he didn't hide it. >> and it never changed. this is real and heart felt and goes deep for donald trump. as you were pointing out, this is much more about will it be a referendum for the republicans who believed that vladimir putin was a bad guy and we are seeing so many of the voters suddenly

change their tune. >> you can think he's a bad guy, he had a relationship with him. >> i also remember the republican criticism with barack obama and he was trying to have better relationships. it failed. >> it probably probably will fail for donald trump. >> to go back to the founding fathers, we hear about hamilton, the play. we talked about something important. the influence of foreign countries in this country -- >> the defense was of the college. >> that is a big piece on the table. >> before i go to break, i won't ask you to comment on it. you have to play a quick clip because it turns out to be the last press conference that donald trump held. we thought he would have one tomorrow. he is not. the last one he felled is where he made the infamous statement.

>> i'm not going to tell putin what to do. russia, if you are listening, i hope you are able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. they probably have them. i have like them released. >> does that not give you pause? >> if russia or china or any other country has those e-mails, i would love to see them. >> i play the clip and we will talk about it later. that is now the most recent press conference he held. when the infamous exchange took place. we will go to break. po lit fact reveals the lie of the year. concern about president-elect trump's conflicts of interest. you will have to wait a little longer to hear him answer any questions on the topic. he postponed tomorrow's news conference until, well, apparently sometime before

january 20th. we'll be right back. for partners in health, time is life. we have 18,000 people around the world. the microsoft cloud helps our entire staff stay connected and work together in real time to help those that need it. the ability to collaborate changes how we work. what we do together changes how we live. just serve classy snacks and bew a gracious host,iday party. no matter who shows up. do you like nuts?

>> welcome back. another fight brewing between the obama and sanlders wing of the party. tom perez on hillary clinton's short list for vp is considering running for chair of the democratic national committee. he considered the call. i would put him up against minnesota congressman teeth ellis who was a loyal surrogate and they would like to see as the chair. some people think he's an oughts on favorite. we see what happens. perez ellison could be quite the internal fight. we'll be right back. bl am not actually cleaning it up. what's that make mommy do? (doorbell) what's that?

swiffer wetjet. this is amazing. woah wow. now i feel more like making a mess is part of growing up. only new wetjet pads have absorb and lock to soak up tough messes and lock them away stop cleaning. start swiffering. why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. welcome become to "mtp daily" we were expecting to hear from donald trump on how he

plans to handle conflicts of interest. he had a press conference scheduled for thursday, but last night he kicked that can down the road, tweeting this. even though i am not mandate bide law to do so, i will be leaving my businesses by january 20th to focus full time on the presidency. don and eric will manage them. no new deals will be done during my term in office. i will hold a press conference in the near future to discuss the conflicts of interest. busy times. this is not the first time he told us that he would like to buy more time when it comes to deciding when he is going to talk about his conflicts of interest or businesses. he said again and again he would release his tax returns as soon as the audit is over and he would put his business in a blind trust. since election day, he backed off on that and assures us that whatever he does do, he believes

the law is on his side. >> i could run my business perfectly. then run the country perfectly. i assumed that you would have to set up a type of trust or whatever and you don't. i was surprised to see it. in theory i don't have to do anything. >> i won't be involved in my business even though i have a legal right to be. the president has a certain doctrine that he can do things. i don't want to do it. even if i could which i'm allowed to, i wouldn't want to do it. >> i spoke with two of the top ethics experts. they were both chief ethics lawyers. he served with president obama and richard served with president george w. bush. they are the chair and vice chair of citizens for responsibility and ethics, a government watch dog group.

by asking them about the argue that some trump folks believe that it's much harder to create a blind trust when you are dealing with real estate holdings rather than simply stock. >> president-elect trump has a very different portfolio of holdings than any other president than we have had. i believe he needs to take the steps that are required in order to have a conflict-free presidency. that's going to help him be a much more effective president. to avoid appearances if not violations of the constitution through payments from foreign governments as well as the concerns that arise when his name is going up on buildings all over the world. national security issues. i hope he takes the steps he needs to. that puts that money in

conflict-free assets. >> if he came to you and said look, i know your recommendation and you made it clear to divest all and that's the safest and easiest conflict-free way to do it. put the money in treasuries. he said i'm not giving up ownership. i will give up control, but not ownership. i don't want to do that. is there a way to put him in a conflict minimal situation some. >> there is no way that donald trump can serve as the president of the united states and hang on to this enormous web of domestic and international businesses and keep an interest in them. he is going to be conflicted. there is going to be a cloud of question every time he makes a decision. is he doing it to benefit his businesses or benefit the united states? he is going to stumble over the constitution which prohibits the

kinds of flows of monthat come to him every day from foreign governments because of his business empire. we will have a scandal before too long because you can't have these kinds of businesses. it's an invitation to people to offer improprieties. particularly with your children involved. now he is an executive producer of a show. no way to do without courting disaster. i wouldn't agree to it under any circumstances. >> richard, i want to bring up this clause. no title of nobility shall be granted by the united states and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall without the consent of congress accept of any present e mollument title from any king, prince, or foreign state.

the phrase is without the consent of the congress. this implies to me that it's congress that is the job to enforce this in the constitution. any citizen can make a case in front of the court. i am curious of that. who enforces this clause? is it congress? is it the courts? walk me through. >> it's congress. the first step is that congress can get consent and has through the decorations act. there are the specific provisions there. if the president-elect wants to negotiate a deal where he gets additional gifts from foreign governments and transactions from foreign government, more power to him. he can work it out. that's a good way to do it on the front end. on the back you deal with

impeachment. congress does not think you should be taking it in violation of the constitution. the constitution said what congress gets to do about it. what is concerning me is the constitutional provision and people are not taking it seriously. >> it's funny you bring that up. that's what trump is counting on here, his supporters who he will argue they knew this going in. >> right. >> that they don't care. obviously my argument is you don't care until you care. we know that that's true when it comes to the american public. they may not care during the election and then it happens and wait a minute, i don't like that. that may be what trump is counting on here. >> well, chuck, it was not a referendum with a specific question put to the american people. do you want trump to continue to run his international businesses? do you want him to have his

children in his official meetings with foreign heads of state? do you want him to take over as the producer of a tv show while sitting in the oval office? i don't think the american people bless that. number two, this is a recipe for scandal. we have seen again and again in democratic and republican administrations, when the first scandal hits, the people are fed up and disgusted and members of your own party turn against you. we have seen it. >> you guys did not pull punches which i appreciate and i hope a lot of people are listening. thanks for coming on and sharing your views. >> thank you. >> thanks, chuck. >> these two gentlemen gave an interesting lesson in how to deal with these issues and the different problems you will face. there is a lot more. this was just a small part of the conversation i had with norman eisen and richard painter. you can see the rest on "meet the press".com. it was a wild year on the

campaign trail, but what was the biggest pants on fire moment of the past 12 months. our friends at politifact will beveiling the lie of the year. keep it here. for christmas ♪ ♪ only a hippopotamus will do at the united states postal service, we deliver more online purchases to homes than anyone else in the country. and more hippopotamuses, too. ♪ so whatever your holiday priority, our priority is you.

that airline credit card yout? have... it could be better. it's time to shake things up. with the capital one venture card, you get double miles on everything you buy, not just airline purchases. seriously, think of all the things you buy. great...is this why you asked me to coffee?

well yeah... but also to catch-up. what's in your wallet? late night on msnbc. she will talk one on one with loretta lynch at 9 p.m. eastern.

we will unveil politifact's lie of the year. >> another record day for stocks surging to a new high 90 points away from the 20,000 mark. adding 14 to another record and the nasdaqs to an all time high. beginning the final of the year. investors will hear at 2:30 eastern. shareholders voted a merger with monsanto and bayer. that's it from cnbc, first in business worldwide.

welcome back. in an election year filled with exaggeration, distortions and outright lies, politifact announces the lie of the year. the choice was not easy

considering the finalists. >> director comey said my answers were truthful and what i said is consistent with what i told the american people. >> i was against the war in iraq. you can look at esquire magazine in 04 and before that. >> there was never any material marked classified that was sent or received by me. >> there is tremendous voter fraud. >> in the end none of the candidates made the cut. what was the lie of the year? the editor of politifact is here and i'm not going to announce it. you are going to announce it. lie of the year. >> ready? >> want a drumroll? >> we're chose the category of fake news. this year we saw more made up stories. we are not talking everyday exaggerations or spins. things that were literally spun out of thin air, put on the internet, usually facebook. they are all over the web and

google searches and it's not true. like the pope endorsed donald trump or hillary clinton is doing nepharious things out of a pizza shop. stuff made up. it seemed emblematic of the year. >> you never thought you would be snoeps, the topul ulainternee that the guardian of fake and has been the myth busters, but they overwhelm and this almost overwhelmed you too. >> there is truth there because we are normally looking at the candidates on the campaign trails and we put resources into fact checking the debates. a lot of stories went under the radar and were on social media. for people who deal with facts in evidence, there is a temptation to say nobody can believe that. whether people believe it or not, they did a detailed

analysis to show the facebook posts were so craftily made, they outranked real news. >> politifact, do you feel like you have to turn more attention and resources on this issue and almost patrolling this aspect where candidates leaving it to others to deal with the policy makers and there is really nobody guarding this hen house. >> we think this absolutely needs attention and we have been putting more resources into it. we have to make hard decisions and there is always more we can get to. this needs looking at. we need a discussion on facts and evidence and truth and critical thinking. this had to be a frustrating year. it was a banner year for fact checkers. it didn't have the impact on the populous. is your glass half full or half empty? >> that's a hard question. donald trump was unlike any

candidate we saw and his willingness to say things that were not accurate. he would repeat fake news stories. there were startling examples of him saying things that were in super market tabloids or the internet. but we feel like as journalists, our duty is to the truth. all journalists, that's our duty. we have to keep doing it. what choice do we have? >> nose to the grind stone. up ahead, is there any chance the electoral college members may go off on their own and dump trump? stay tuned. ♪ ♪ see ya next year. this season, start a new tradition.

experience the power of infiniti now, with leases starting at $319 a month. infiniti. empower the drive. ( ♪ ) ♪ you gotta to be cool, calm, collected ♪ ♪ look your fear in the eye ♪ you gotta be shaking off the pressure ♪ ♪ gotta be taking your time ♪ had my ups, downs, run-arounds ♪ ♪ my dark and despair ♪ but the best stuff came ♪ when all the sweat wasn't there ♪ ♪ you gotta say ♪ hey-y ♪ ho-o ♪ hey-y ♪ ho-o

i'm obsessed without rage and the kind of partisan blinkered outrage on both sides of the aisle that is part of the daily political life. in other words, when we get angry at stuff that the other guy does when we don't care when our guy does it. try to imagine the republican outrage of president obama channelling crump to executive produce a show or meet with kanye west the day he announced secretary of state is or dismiss findings by the cia or cozy up to vladimir putin. the "wall street journal" editorial page would be on fire and republicans preparing articles of impeachment. before democrats feel superior,

it helps to remember how quiet supporters were when the president skipped intelligence briefings or read it on the ipad or slow jammed the news or traded jobs between two firms or was criticized by republicans for being the so-called celebrity candidate. it's okay to root for an athlete on monday when he's on your team and boo him mercilessly when he gets traded, but let's restrict that silly emotionalism to sports. politics and public service is too important. try having principals when your red glasses are on and when the blue glasses are on. we'll be right back. bl

>> members of the electoral college meet in a week to elect the president of the united states. a growing group among them want to make it anything but formal.

most states have passed laws to force that. harvard professor and one-time democratic candidate told me he was aware of at least 20 republican electors who are considering casting a bat ol for someone other than donald trump. >> they can't be forced by law, but they have an ethical moral obligation when they take the pledge and must vote that way unless there is an overriding moral reason not to vote that way. the disqualification or the failure of a candidate to live up to the qualifications would be one such reason. that's exactly the issue that is raised by this election. the electoral college was made for this election precisely. >> let me bring back the panel. i have a longer interview with lawrence and we will post the whole thing up. what is fascinating is he is simply making the argument. the electors should pause and not elect anybody president and force it to the house and the

house after deciding putin and trump and his finances elections trump, so be it, but buy more time. >> that's ridiculous and theloo republican elector who said that he won't vote for donald trump and there may be others whoend up. of course, trump has a pretty nice cushion in the electoral college so he can afford to lose some. but it's the height of insanity to think that after this election, we would have the electoral college overturn the result and moreover, though, it's so insane, can i see it happening, or see electors voting against trump. >> this will happen, and he'll still be president, because the house will decide, the public will blow up. and it's like, at the end of the day, the safest thing to do is still elect him president. >> i mean, so many crazy things have happened this in election that i have learned to say

anything is possible. that's the main lesson i've taken from covering this campaign. but in practical terms, this is very far fetched. it would be highly unprecedented, trump does have a very wide margin in the electoral college, even if he does lose individual electors, there would be a long way for him to go for him to just -- it would be seem as him losing a vote, if they were to do this kind of placeholder thing. and i haven't seen evidence of a alarm-scale sentiment to that effect, because most of the people who volunteered to be electors in their state were trump supporters. >> you brought up hamilton earlier and stole my thunder. it is alexander hamilton who essentially defended the electoral college in saying it was essentially necessary for this very -- if there is an idea that a foreign entity was somehow infiltrating the country, of course, then they were worried more probably about the british and maybe less so the french. >> and now it's russia. and the cia and homeland security -- >> and you have john podesta endorsing the idea that all the

electors should get an intelligence briefing. is that far fetched? >> again, going to molly's point, you never say never. we've never seen this before. and i mean, it's the gift that keeps on giving. everything's becoming new. but i think, people -- there's a concern. there's a major concern, not just with the folks in the electoral college, but people in this nation. and those people who are in the electoral college are feeling the concern. the question marks that are rising up. i know you don't like that. you're looking at me, but there is a major concern right now. the influence of russia, the conflict of interest. we have never seen this before! and people want to make sure that they're doing the right thing, because this not only changes the course of history for four to eight years, but 20 to 30 years down the road. >> look, it's in the constitution -- >> that's fine, but you know what, you shouldn't let emotions influence your decision -- >> it's not emotions! >> you have the cia, which is one of over a dozen intelligence agencies -- >> homeland security -- >> there's one, the cia, which

thinks that it was the intent to elect trump. that's 1 out of 14. so there's a difference between russia meddling in the campaign, which the community agrees on, and russia meddling in the election, which there is no evidence for that. >> donald trump himself actually, at the debate, said that russia should hack into hillary clinton's e-mails. he gave authorization. and he can say that it was a joke, but he still did it. and look at what's happening now. >> you can't let people's dislike of donald trump upset -- >> it's not dislike, it's what he said! >> i think matt actually makes an important distinction, though -- >> molly, we wouldn't have -- >> we don't have evidence that people didn't vote the way those votes were recorded. maybe they would vote a different way today, but there's a reason we have an election day on a calendar and people vote went they vote. i think a lot of people don't like the way the election turned out, there are a lot of people, the majority of the electorate, feel that way are grasping at straws and getting false hope from stories.

>> i will say this. if we are never going to use the electoral college, we should polish it. not that you go popular vote, but delegates -- no, my point is, the electoral college is the idea, a college of influencers, right, deciding whether the american public had made the right decision. if you are not going to ever allow them to exercise that power, than why -- i'm not saying get rid of the electoral college and the idea that a state is worth a certain amount of delegates. then turn it into a delegate. >> that's one piece of the puzzle that needs to be changed. this whole election cycle has shown us what the founding fathers have created needs to maybe change. they didn't foresee social media -- >> actually, i give them credit. you've got to give them credit. they thought of almost everything, including the emoluments clause. >> but they didn't see social media and the immediacy and how things could change at a moment's notice. >> the electoral college is there to prevent the biggest majority states to dominate the election process. >> but i'm talking about the actual group of people --

>> so there's laws to make them vote on bloc. >> it's that group of people. why do we have them? >> it's not that they're being allowed to do the job that the founders gave them, but it looks to me that they're going to do the job the way they have interpreted their mandate. >> the good news is it makes everybody read the constitution, again. and that's never a bad thing. molly, april, matthew, thank you very much. my entire interview with lawrence lesig, because if you're really into this topic and kind of a constitutional junkie, you'll enjoy this interview at meetthepressnbc.com. after the break, the end of the benghazi committee. stay tuned.

this is my body of proof. proof of less joint pain. and clearer skin. this is my body of proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis with humira. humira works by targeting and helping to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number #1 prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. want more proof? ask your rheumatologist about humira. humira. what's your body of proof?

he wears his army hat, he gets awalks aroundliments. with his army shirt looking all nice. and then people just say, "thank you for serving our country" and i'm like, that's my dad. male vo: no one deserves a warmer welcome home. that's why we're hiring 10,000 members of the military community by the end of 2017. i'm very proud of him. male vo: comcast.

in case you missed it, the house benghazi committee quietly filed its final report and shut down. the committee's legacy will go down as one of the most spectacularly successful failures in american politics. let me explain. the committee was a wild political success for republicans and it uncovered clinton's use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state which led to fbi meetings and director comey's letter which clinton's team still believes cost them the admit. let's go back to the benghazi committee. it was arguably an investigation failure. it failed to turn up anything significantly new about what actually happened in benghazi, despite 2 1/2 years of looking, and despite interviews with more than 80 new witnesses. so in case you missed it, the house benghazi committee put clinton lut ringer with

subpoenas and an 11-hour grilling on capitol hill, interim reports and final reports, and an addendum in an issue that had already been investigated by seven other committees. that's all for tonight. ari melber picks up our coverage in three seconds. hello. i'm ari melber. 6:00 p.m. on the east coast. you're watching msnbc live. and it's a crude awakening. donald trump's oil man for secretary of state, already getting a chilly reception from even republicans. also, the fight for the future of the democratic party, a new candidate could turn the dnc into a battle between allies of president obama and bernie sanders. also, trump's bait and switch with the media, from late-night tweets to many shiny distractions, what should reporters do when a fact check fails to shame this particular politician? all of that this hour. donald trump, though, we begin with the story that donald trump isn't known for diplomacy and neither is his new p