clinton. let's see what four years and possibly eight does to donald trump. that's all for tonight. we'll be back monday with more "mtp daily." and of course, if it's sunday, catch "meet the press" on your local nbc station. ari melber picks up our coverage right now. hello, i'm ari melber. 6:00 p.m. on the east coast this friday evening and you're watching msnbc live. president obama comes out swinging in the last press conference of the year, revealing what he told putin after the election hack and smacking down russia as, quote, the weaker country. hillary clinton behind closed doors, meanwhile, lashing out at the russian president as well, saying it was a, quote, personal beef that led to this hack. also, the president offering some tough love to his own party about how to win back the white house. now, folks, there is a last time for everything. today was president obama's last scheduled press conference, a rite of passage in every white house holiday season. but there was very little holiday cheer today.

the president was peppered with questions about the russian hacking. he defended his administration's response and offered a stern warning to russia that the u.s. would continue responding. the president's most emphatic moment, though, clearly came in what we saw as an implicit rebuke of donald trump's reproach to all the intelligence this week. he took the president-elect to task for impugning the cia on its russia intel and going after republicans who might not back a full non-partisan inquiry. >> what we've simply said is the facts. which are that based on uniform intelligence assessments, the russians were responsible for hacking the dnc and that as a consequence, it is important for us to review all elements of that and make sure that we are

preventing that kind of interference through cyberattacks in the future. that should be a bipartisan issue. that shouldn't be a partisan issue. and my hope is that the president-elect is going to similarly be concerned with making sure that we don't have potential foreign influence in our election process. i don't think any american wants that. and, that shouldn't be a source of an argument. >> then obama did address some of the partisan lines here. he cited a poll that shows, get this, one out of three republicans saying they currently support putin and obama played the reagan card. >> there was a survey, some of you saw, where -- now, this is just one poll, but pretty credible source. 37% of republican voters approve of putin.

over a third of republican voters approve of vladimir putin. the former head of the kgb. ronald reagan would roll over in his grave. >> the president also slammed putin's russia in blunt terms. >> this is part of what i meant when i said that we got to think about what's happening to our political culture here. the russians can't change us. or significantly weaken us. they are a smaller country, they are a weaker country, their economy doesn't produce anything that anybody wants to buy except oil and gas and arms. they don't innovate. but they can impact us if we lose track of who we are. they can impact us if we abandon

our values. >> and the president made clear again that russia's putin was behind all of this. >> not much happens in russia without vladimir putin. i mean, this is pretty hierar y hierarchical operation. last i checked, there's not a lot of debate and democratic deliberation, particularly when it comes to policies directed at the united states. >> the president's remarks came as some other news poured in. the fbi officially joining the chorus of intelligence agencies that have concluded, as we've all heard, that it was russia trying to intervene in the election, in part to help donald trump. joining me now from washington, foreign columnist and associate editor for "the washington post," david ignatius and white house correspondent for the "daily mail," franchesca

chambers. good evening, david. what does this all mean going forward when we see, perhaps, a peaceful transfer of power from obama to trump, yes, but not one of intellectual agreement on this core attack on our democracy from russia, according to the intel. >> there are two things that struck me, that today was such a news-filled day. the first is, the president said, we will take action. the united states will retaliate against this russian covert action, russian hacking, intended to interfere with our election process. he didn't, obviously, say what that would be and there's going to be a lot of speculation. but that's a striking thing for the president to have said. second, donald trump and the u.s. intelligence community are on a collision course. donald trump, today, issued another tweet that has the effect of belittling this allegation of russian interference in our politics. we now have the cia joined by the fbi and the director of the national intelligence, all

saying that this was a russian hacking, intended to interfere and aid one candidate and not another. and i think donald trump's going to have to think, how is he going to run this intelligence community. how is he going to lead this enormous secret enterprise once he's president? >> right. and this is an enterprise that exists primarily, not exclusively, but primarily to provide the best possible information, intelligence, sources, methods, and planning for the president. it's not for most of the congress, it's not for most of the public, although there are other roles there. so it's something else. and on the fact-free duplicitous nature of all of this, franchesca, we have brand-new -- i'm going to play for the first time, within the last hour, one of trump's top spokesman from the rnc, sean spicer, making -- and i want to be clear with viewers before we play this, this is a false claim, as far as we can figure out. but we're going to play it. sean spicer fallsly alleging that somehow this foreign adversarial hack would not have

occurred if it were not for hillary clinton's private e-mail server, which was a different trove of e-mails, altogether. >> do i think foreign governments, russia and other, try to probe u.s. sites, government and otherwise? absolutely. china, russia, we do it, they do it. but i think the problem i have with this story and the narrative that's out there about russia a few things. number one, this wouldn't have happened if hillary clinton didn't have a secret server. >> franchesca, what do you think of that claim? >> well, as you noted, the hacks were on democratic party officials within the dnc and also on clinton's campaign chairman, john podesta. what you're seeing here, too, though, is that the white house and president obama, as well as his spokesperson, and president-elect donald trump had kind of been at a detente previously to this, with the

president and trump speaking on the phone regularly. but with this hacking story, you see the gloves starting to come off on both sides, with the president's spokesperson hitting at donald trump saying he obviously knew about the hacking, because he said in july that russia should release hillary clinton's e-mails that they move. and then, of course, donald trump responding on twitter, kellyanne conway saying that the president's spokesperson, josh earnest, was being irresponsible with what he said. so we may be going back in the final days of the obama administration to a situation where the president-elect and the president are not necessarily on the same page. >> right. although that's putting it highly charitably. david, there is a page. there's 17 nonpartisan intelligence agencies that have helped write the page. and there are people who acknowledge what's on the page. and then as i just played, there's sean spicer who -- and i don't want to overread the false claim -- but who seems to be suggesting that it is hillary clinton's fault that according to our intelligence agencies, russian-backed hackers attacked other american interests. that is gobsmacking.

>> the idea that it was hillary clinton's fault that a cyberattack was launched against the democratic party and her top campaign adviser is preposterous. it just -- as president obama said today, the vulnerability of the united states to this kind of political interference comes from the fact that we are so divided politically. and the president made a direct appeal to members of congress and implicitly to president-elect trump. we have to get united in responding to this. congress needs to have a bipartisan investigation to establish the facts, so that there are not statements like the ones that you just cited. you can only imagine what the russians who planned this covert action are thinking, as they look at the divided, disorganized, destabilized response to the united states. >> you mentioned the president. let's take a listen to him on that point you cited.

>> in this hyperpartisan atmosphere, at a time when my primary concern was making sure that the integrity of the election process was not in any way damaged, at a time when anything that was said by me or anybody in the white house would immediately be seen through a partisan lens, i wanted to make sure that everybody understood, we were playing this thing straight. >> franchesca, i don't doubt that that was his goal, just as it was the goal of the intelligence agencies, but you have to wonder whether at a certain point, if the hyperpartisanship is coming more from one side, if donald trump not only questioning whether it was a rigged election beforehand, but even since winning, has talked about millions of legal votes, another blatant lie, that's been disproven by everyone who's looked at it. you have to wonder whether at some point, there's a risk of rewarding the working of the refs in that way. >> and that is exactly why the

president has said that he wants to have this review, but also that congress should have their own independent investigation into this, to be able to confirm the intelligence, that it was, in fact, the russians, and whether or not vladimir putin himself ordered this exact attack. >> david, also, i want to play the cut it out moment today, where president obama basically cast himself as having confronted putin over this. and while this is a difficult situation in cyberattacks and cyberwar, if you want to call it that, is many untested in many ways. there are legitimate criticisms that going over to the other country after they did the deed and saying, stop, isn't exactly the strongest response in the world. take a listen to that, obama on that putin meeting. >> in early september, when i saw president putin in china, i felt that the most effective way to ensure that that didn't happen was to talk to him

directly. and tell him to cut it out and there were going to be some serious consequences if he didn't. and in fact, we did not see further tampering of the election process. but, the leaks through wikileaks had already occurred. >> is he overselling the results there, david? >> i think a little bit. certainly, within the u.s. government, there was a lively debate through september, october, right up to the election about whether the president's administration shouldn't do more. there were strong arguments coming from democrats in congress, for example, saying, cut it out privately was not sufficient. so, i think the point the president might have made was that he was so concerned about russian tampering and the possibility of destabilizing the election itself, that he held back. but, it is true that they're coming on a lot stronger now, after the fact, than they did before the election when it might have made a difference.

>> right. and so when you say, it might have made a difference, that's going to be one of the looming questions in the next administration, like it or not, has to deal with, particularly if a country like russia, an adversary feels it got a lot of bang for its buck out of this without much punishment. i guess there'll be a long arc of history to look after that. david ignatius and franchesca chambers, thank you both for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >> thanks. another big story, hillary clinton breaking her silence in what she thought was a private moment last night. we have the audio for you. nbc news also reporting that these hacks started with a personal vendetta vladimir putin had with hillary clinton. we'll play it all for you after the break. ♪ as soon as i became a parent i changed as a person, drastically. ♪ i tried hard to quit smoking. ♪ but when we brought our daughter home that was it. ♪ now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day.

it's the best thing that ever happened to me. can you say thanks nicoderm cq? every great why needs a great how.

hillary clinton out with some new comments, blaming russia in part for her election loss. she was speaking to campaign donors at a private event last night right here in midtown manhattan and she spoke about russia's hacking.

>> make no mistake, as the press is finally catching up to the facts, which we desperate tried the to present to them during the last months of the campaign, this is not just an attack against me and my campaign, although that may have added fuel to the it, this is an attack against our country. we are well beyond normal political concerns here. this is about the integrity of our democracy and the security of our nation. >> that event was supposed to be off the record, but as you can hear there, the audio leaked out, obtained by "the new york times." now, clinton also pointed her finger directly at vladimir putin himself. >> vladimir putin himself directed the covert cyberattacks against our electoral system, against our democracy, apparently because he has a personal beef against me.

>> clinton also spoke about fbi director comey, who had told congress just 12 days before the election that some new e-mails, which turned out not to be significant, had surfaced. >> take it from nate silver, who's pointed out that swing state voters made their decisions in the final days, breaking against me, because of the fbi letter from director comey. and nate silver believes, i happen to believe this, that that letter most likely made the difference in the outcome. >> a lot there to unpack. we are joined by amanda re renteria. amanda, you were there last night. this was supposed to be off the record, right? >> right. >> what do you make starting with russia, of hillary clinton basically saying, whatever you think about the election, you have an adversary targeting her

for confronting her work on behalf of the u.s. government. that is a big way to look at this as a real problem for our democracy in that kind of thing works. >> that's right. and i think a lot of people are misattributing it to the campaign itself, right? but this is a bigger issue. and what you hear in her comment there is that this isn't a normal political process. russia or a foreign government involved in our democratic process is something we should all truly be concerned about. and something we've never seen before. and so the ability the to raise awareness and get people to see the seriousness in this is really what she was trying to do and what we're all trying to do. >> and john podesta, who you obviously work closely, also out on this, from "the washington post," saying, compare the facebook's massive response to the overblown e-mail scandal with the seemingly lackadaisical response to the very real russian plot to subvert a national election shows something's deeply broken at the fbi. is this a coordinated effort by hillary clinton, herself, and her top aids to re-write the

narrative of this loss right now? >> no, not at all. this is a moment for us to talk about what really happened in this election. this is a moment for us to talk about how we were raising our hand in july, saying, please look at what's going on, this is not normal. and really, it was tough to get attention. and now we're noticing, people are coming together and recognizing what we have been a part of really since july. so today's seen the fbi and all the intelligence agencies finally in some ways catch up to us. now is a moment to make sure that people understand what was going on all throughout that time. and we really were trying to get everyone's attention. and now, you know, as we look back on it and you see that the fbi didn't quite take it seriously, they called a help desk at the dnc as opposed to really take it with the seriousness that it was, that we had a foreign government hacking e-mails and trying to intervene in our political process. >> you're referring to "the new york times" report that basically, fbi agents phoned in and said, hey, you might want to

look at this, rather than treating this as a high-level, potentially national security investigation. joe maloney, you worked a lot of campaigns. i'm interested on your view of the politics of this. some will look at what hillary said as self-interested. oh, here are excuses for my loss. and that's partly why i think she cites nate silver to say, this is what the data shows. i want to put up one other piece of data to ask you whether the press sort of blew it. this is from the howard jordanstein center, nonpartisan, they looked at scandal coverage of hillary clinton going into the end of the race. and as you can see in those last two weeks, it was at an all-time high. this is negative scandal coverage, according to harvard, which was, of course, driven by two cryptic, confusing letters from the fbi, which, and the end of my question is coming, which ironically ended by saying there was no scandal there, the second letter clearing her, but what is the political impact of that in your view? >> it's difficult to ascertain at this moment in time. and particularly in light of what the president shared with

the country today. and his specific request to try to distinguish politics from the events that had occurred, leading up to the election that may or may not have been produced by a foreign adversary or may or may not have been produced by various handling of intelligence and other matters by our law enforcement community. at the end of the day, to amanda's point, we have to be able to have a conversation in this country about events that took place. we have to acknowledge that events took place. again, some produced by a foreign adversary and others produced by our law enforcement community and the handling of that information. and if we can't have a conversation about that, without this notion of sour grapes or without others accusing one another of the legitimacy of the outcomes, the electoral process is potentially threatened moving forward here, ari, for years to come, if we can't have an honest conversation about what happened. and that is what i believe

democrats are trying to do. look, i honestly believe that john podesta and secretary clinton are courageous right now. it would be easy to curl up in a ball and lick their wounds. instead, they are raising awareness to what amanda just described. it is going to be president-elect trump's job on january 20th. there is no disputing of the outcome. but we've got to raise awareness and start having this conversation in americans that participate in this process, the civic process of voting. >> and to joe's point, here is what president obama said today, on this, on the fbi. take a listen. >> i have tried to be really strict in my own behavior about preserving the independence of law enforcement free from my own judgments and political assessments, in some cases. and i don't know why i would stop now.

>> amanda, he's speaking to how seriously he takes that, right? >> yeah. >> the problem was whether or not the fbi took it seriously, the right way. because you have this october surprise and now it looks like, according to the intelligence agencies, we have a december surprise. >> that's right,. >> because wouldn't it have been better for the public to know what the intention was of an adversary to disrupt before they have made their decisions? >> that's exactly right. and you know, we all can look back on it, of what information should have gotten out there. but where we are right now, the reason why this conversation is so important is because it does have implications on how foreign governments are going to be involved in our political process. not just how they were involved in the campaign, but how they're going to be involved going forward. and what i hope is everybody watching, everyone tuning is in to this takes a moment to look at how our government was involved, how russia was involved, what our reaction was to it and let's learn going forward. because we really do have a president-elect that has a

different kind of relationship with russia. and everything that we are learning about what russia did is going to be important going forward as well. >> right. and that's a relationship that is obviously under a microscope. final question to you, joe, take a listen to hillary clinton in 2011 when the obama administration was putting the heat on russia, which the intelligence agencies say was the predicate for all of this. take a look. >> we do have serious concerns about the conduct of the elections. we think that the preliminary report just issued by the osce, international mission raised a number of questions about the conduct of the elections. >> to put not too fine a point on it, the reason that senior officials have so much security that we don't want them personally endangered or worried as they try to exercise their jobs on behalf of the u.s. here, the question is, well, if you can ruin the future of their political life or career, does that also have an effect on future officials? how do you think, ultimately, the u.s. should deal with this?

>> ari, it's no different from current membership on the house foreign affairs committee or the senate foreign relations committee. if we can't, in our political system, have discussions, frank discussions, in official public capacities about our relationships with governments around the world, without the repercussions that might occur from an electoral outcome down the road, this is particularly concerning. and we as americans should be invested in a process that tries to figure this out and decipher the very public acts that we just saw with secretary clinton 2011 with covert cyberwarfare on our political system. it's rich that some of our global adversaries might be pointing to those comments as some type of rationale for retaliation during the election. it's unfortunate, but it is something that we absolutely need to be aware of here moving

forward. >> joe maloney in washington, amanda rent tahe rentaria here york, thank you. and president obama also making waves about what to do next. also, taking a stand. new demands from the university of minnesota football team that it's making before it agrees to play in my bowl games this year. we'll explain. terspout. down came the rain and clogged the gutter system creating terspout. a leak in the roof. luckily the spider recently had geico help him with homeowners insurance. water completely destroyed his swedish foam mattress. he got full replacement and now owns the sleep number bed. his sleep number setting is 25. call geico and see how much you could save on homeowners insurance. fight heartburn fast. with tums chewy delights. the mouthwatering soft chew that goes to work in seconds

to conquer heartburn fast. tum tum tum tum. chewy delights. only from tums. see me. see me. don't stare at me. see me. see me. see me to know that psoriasis is just something that i have. i'm not contagious. see me to know that... ...i won't stop until i find what works. discover cosentyx, a different kind of medicine for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. proven to help the majority of people find clear or almost clear skin. 8 out of 10 people saw 75% skin clearance at 3 months. while the majority saw 90% clearance. do not use if you are allergic to cosentyx. before starting, you should be tested for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur... ...tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms...

...such as fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. see me. see me. see me. on my way. find clear skin... and a clearer path forward. for a different kind of medicine, ask your dermatologist about cosentyx.

a controversy is brewing at the university of minnesota over football, sexual assault allegations, and a spirited debate over how to address due process on campus. the school's football team is putting its season on the line in what players say is a sacrifice to defend the reputations of ten teammates suspended over allegations of sexual misconduct. an accuser alleged after socializing and drinking on september 1st, she went to an apartment with some football players who forced her into sexual contact with multiple people. those accused players, however, say any sex that occurred was consensual.

a police investigation led to no charges and the team stood together now to announce a boycott, including of the upcoming holiday bowl, until the suspensions are lifted. >> we're concerned that our brothers have been named publicly with reckless disregard in violation of their constitutional rights. we are now compelled to speak for our team and take back our program. >> a little more background for you. police investigated these allegations and they sent the findings for review over to a d.a., which declined to bring any charges. that was in october. then the accusers and the players reached a private settlement, where the accuser dropped a restraining editor request and the players for their part agreed to refrain from any contact with her. that's according to reporting by the "star tribune." but then the university president separately suspended the students following a university inquiry. that process uses a lower standard of proof than a criminal inquiry and is largely secret. the school says that's necessary to protect the rights of

the holiday the bowl game is on the schedule to be played in about a week and a half. now, up next, president obama not pulling any punches. he had some raw advice to democrats after their election loss and we'll provide you with some new info on that special coffee date with donald trump that was going to the highest bidder. ♪ i want a hippopotamus 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.

i discovered a woman my family tree, named marianne gaspard. i became curious where in africa she was from. so i took the ancestry dna test to find out more about my african roots. ancestry really helped me fill in a lot of details. when you're close to the people you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections

and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz. nso we know how to cover almost compalmoanything.hing, even a rodent ride-along. [dad] alright, buddy, don't forget anything! [kid] i won't, dad... [captain rod] happy tuesday morning! captain rod here. it's pretty hairy out on the interstate.traffic is literally crawling, but there is some movement on the eastside overpass. getting word of another collision. [burke] it happened. december 14th, 2015. and we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

the question is, how do we rebuild that party as a whole, so that, you know, there's not a county in any state, i don't care how red, where we don't have a presence and we're not making the argument. because i think we have the better argument. >> through it. president obama using that end of the year press conference to critique his own party just a smidge, tor at least some of th strategies of the clinton campaign. here's more of what he said. >> how do we make sure we're showing up in places where democratic policies are needed, where they're helping, where they're making a difference. but where people feel as if they're not being heard. and where democrats are characterized as coastal liberal, latte-sipping, you know, politically correct, out of touch folks, we have to be in

those communities. and i've seen that when we are in those communities, it makes a difference. that's how i became president. >> those remarks may have some people spitting their lattes out. president but at a party fund-raiser in a posh hotel right here in manhattan last night, clinton defended her campaign's approach and she had an implicit reminder that guess what, she, and this is just a fact, won more votes. >> it is more important than ever to stand up for the values and visions at the heart of this campaign. >> if you dig deep enough through all the mud of politics, eventually you hit something hard and true. a foundation of fundamental values that define us as americans. i really believe that and i have over 66 million reasons to be proud. >> there are, of course, more

wings to the party of just obama and clinton, but it is a display right here of two different roads from this election. one searches for more support from beyond the coasts. and one that unapologetically notes that more people, wherever they live, already voted more for hillary clinton than donald trump. for more on the road ahead, i'm joined by michael nas tumasky. you said, the election is about trump, whether he's menace or entertainment, most people in the media are shuler well aware that he's a menace, but the media as a machine can't help but present him first as entertainment. maybe 50 years ago it could have been different, but not now. one can acknowledge clinton's flaws and add some, still, this election, you wrote, is barely even about her. it's about whether the people and forces that exist to protect the u.s. from precisely what's happening now will rise to the occasion and do so. if you were right that the election is more about trump's

fact-free appeal, them do you think democrats risk overkrae overcorrecting for this race where they did okay? >> yeah, they do risk overcorrecting. and thanks for quoting back -- you would have quoted back a lot of things that would have read a lot worse than that. things i wrote -- >> we have kanye booked monday, so i'm getting just flattered. >> glad to serve as a warm-up. look, she did win the popular vote. and, you know, her message -- you know, her economic message was fine. it wasn't a drilled home well enough, is the one criticism i would make of the campaign. i don't want to pile on too much, but that is a legitimate criticism. she was doing a kind of middle class populism, but she didn't push it enough or it didn't resonate, it didn't get through, and trump sucked up all the oxygen and the media is to blame

for a lot of that. so, yeah, the democrats are in a strange situation, because the next four years are going to be disastrous from a democratic and liberal point of view, but that doesn't mean that they did everything wrong in this campaign. they didn't. >> when you say she was pop kbru list, and this is a message problem, a lot of folks in the democratic problem saberny was the populist choice and at a messaging left, trump seemed to steal that appeal, even if we're now learning we've got goldman sachs and exxon running the so-called fixing of the rigged system. >> he stole it on the big issue, which is anti-trade. and there wasn't that much you could do about that. but she had a lot of positions. most people didn't know them, because she didn't quite manage to drive them home in the right way. her college tuition proposal, her health care proposals, her paid family leave proposal, there are a lot of things like that that would benefit, you

know, all working class families, white, black, brown, whatever. >> let me push you on that. i think what you're saying is interesting and certainly makes sense. but it sort of posits the american electorate as a yoga system. then they go on and go about their day. the question is whether we're entering a type of politics if you're using it a as a given. candidates all the time deal with that. you say house races, we say, we do national news, so most house races aren't national news. take this as a given. is it a mistake for democrats to focus so much on white paper policies, quote/unquote, if they're not hitting home with being seen as on the side of working people, in some grander, bigger way. >> well, sure, it is. and hillary clinton had trouble with in this campaign, and i think has always had a little bit of trouble with finding that big theme and that really dramatic way to say it. i covered her first senate race,

starting in 1999 and she gave these speeches in which she it rated all the things she was for, all the positions she had, all the things she was going to do to develop the economy in upstate new york and bring more airline service into rochester and all these things. and they were all good things, but they were a list, you know, they weren't quite a theme. and that has always been a little bit of a deficiency of hers, as i said. i don't want to pile on her right now, but that has always been a little bit of a gee deficiency of hers. and you do need in this age a candidate who can convert the list into a theme. >> michael tomasky, as always, interesting to hear your thoughts. thank you. claiming an historic victory despite using the popular vote. what is the real momentum that trump has going into the white house. first, a story we are not letting go of. the question of conflicts. where the trump family business ends and the white house will begin when the president-elect takes the oath of office. (war drums beating)

fight heartburn fast. with tums chewy delights. the mouthwatering soft chew that goes to work in seconds to conquer heartburn fast. tum tum tum tum. chewy delights. only from tums. be a park ranger, i got really excited.

gabe's obviously really sick. and there's a lot that he isn't able to do, and make-a-wish stepped in. we had to climb up the mountain to get the injured hiker. he fell from, like, a rock. he's been the one that has been rescued so many times. he said to me, "today, i got to be the hero." (avo) the subaru share the love event has helped grant the wishes of over twelve hundred kids so far. get a new subaru, and we'll donate two hundred and fifty dollars more to help those in need. ♪put a little love in your heart.♪ the search for relief often leads here.s, introducing drug-free aleve direct therapy. a high intensity tens device that uses technology once only in doctors' offices. for deep penetrating relief at the source. new aleve direct therapy.

all right. here's a little test. if you are old enough to remember the year 1971, you probably remember the bell bottom pants trend or the hot pants craze. and you might remember the number one hit song of the year by sly and the family stone, "it's a family affair." well, one thing we learned in politics this week is that could be the anthem for the trump administration. this could be the week that historians cite to show that trump clearly decided it's a family fair and ditch any pretenses about addressing conflicts of interest. "the new york times," in fact, caught ivanka this week auctioning off coffee dates for tens of thousands of dollars for charity, but now that's canceled. no explanation formally from the trump transition. this is the week that trump brought his two other adult children, who, remember, are supposed to run the business forum to a government meeting with tech executive leaders.

no explanation there on whether there were representing the company or the government or both. and this family affair week is the week that trump told folded, canceled his promised announcement to explain his conflicts of interest plan. the apparent strategy is to change the subject and hope with no conflicts announcement, there would be no coverage. well, we will continue to report on this and the conflicts of interest that face him and his family regardless of canceled press conferences or any angry tweets loomg the way. joining me now to dig into the story, perry bacon. it's not often that donald trump runs away from a press event. clearly he thought he would be ready for this, thought he wasn't, and figures we'll just drop the story. >> this was a big event this week, ari. the fact that he scheduled this press conference, which was supposed to address the issue we had for the last month, which is, how are they going to separate the business from the presidency. he cancels it. he makes up excuses about why. it's now a few weeks from now. i begin to wonder if it's going

to happen january 2018 at this point. we're getting into a very worrisome situation, where ivanka and jared are now going to have big jobs in the mouse, offices in the white house. and it's not -- now it seems clear their going to be in government meetings and potentially still involved in making money for the business at the same time. there's been almost no effort to separate business from politics at all, so far. and it's not clear that donald trump, yub, he said it in "the new york times," where he basically said these laws don't apply to the president. and basically said, i don't care what anyone else thinks. and he's behaving very much that way. >> and you've covered congress, you kofed presidential campaigns for nbc, for "washington post" before that. just to take a step back from trump and the way trump can sometimes melt brains, in your reporting, do you see other government officials or cabinet secretaries bring one or two kids to meetings? do you see them in the situation

room? is this normal in any way? >> no, sasha and malia are not going to government meetings. they go to pardon the turkey each year with president obama. that's pretty much when i see them in the white house. and the president's kids are just not involved in meetings like this. presidents almost always divest, you know, from my business they have. george w. bush did that. barack obama did that. you just have presidents who take every effort possible, the ones i have covered with to be avoid any kind of conflict of interest. and also, presidents normally, when they say they're having a press conference in a week, usually do that. this is a very unusual circumstance. this is not how america traditionally works, where the kids are white house advisers. it's not how america's worked before. chelsea clinton was not a white house adviser in the '90s. >> right and i've said this before and i'll keep saying it, it's not a personal criticism of them to point out that they have no apparent expertise in the

things they're advising him on. now, donald trump may not have the expertise, but he has something else. he has the legitimacy of having won the electoral college and the election. so that's a decision the voters have made. but then bringing in people with no expertise by virtue of what? by only their family connections is the textbook definition of nepotism. indeed, it's illegal under federal law for most posts. we'll keep an eye on what is formalized. perry bacon in our washington bureau, thank you. >> thanks, ari. now running the nation despite losing the popular vote, we'll talk about the historical lessons for what makes a mandate, next. hey, searching for a great used car? yeah! you got it. just say show me millions of used cars for sale at the all new carfax.com. i don't want one that's had a big wreck just say, show me cars with no accidents reported pretty cool i like it that's the power of carfax® find the cars you want, avoid the ones you don't plus you get a free carfax® report with every listing start your used car search at carfax.com

( ♪ ) ♪ 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 ♪ hey-y fight heartburn fast. with tums chewy delights. the mouthwatering soft chew that goes to work in seconds to conquer heartburn fast. tum tum tum tum. chewy delights. only from tums.

and finally tonight, we have a fun little history lesson. on what makes a mandate. at a heritage foundation event tuesday, vice president-elect mike pence said donald trump had a mandate, quote, this is an historic victory. we truly do believe our president-elect has secured a mandate for leadership. but as trump is measuring the drapes at the white house, hillary clinton does lead him by 2.8 million in the popular vote. and we're seeing some pushback on the mandate talk, some calling trump a glitch president, not a mandate president. but ultimately, the trump folks say, so what! popular vote or not, clinton lost, trump is the next president. that's reality. he's in charge, and the bigger question in history is when you have no claim to majority support, does it have any affect on the politics and the opposition against that new president? can a lack of a mandate hurt the incoming president? well, we've got some historians here to help us sort it all out. mark weston is the author of the

runner-up presidency, which digs into that very issue. and presidential historian, professor allan lichtman from american university, who is famous for doing something the media failed to do, which was see the trump victory coming. congratulations to you on that. your knowledge and foresight, we'll get into that in a sec. but mark, let me start with you. this is something that keeps happening. the trump folks say, look, if you change the rules of the game, they would have had a different strategy, they had the better, smarter strategy. but in your view throughout history, does this kind of situation ever hobble the incoming administration? >> yes, it's hard to say you have a mandate if more people voted against you than for you. we can't pretend to be a democracy if the losing candidate wins the presidency twice in 16 years. no one is questioning trump's legitimacy or his right to move into the white house, but he does not have a mandate. >> the pushback to your point,

we are a constitutional democracy, in the same way that idaho has a lot more political power in the senate than california, doesn't mean that the senate isn't the product of a democracy. it means it's a constitutional compromise that we all were warned about when we went to those civics classes and learned we have some weird rules. >> it was the compromise with the slave states. the southern whites at the constitutional convention were afraid they would be outvoted by northerners in elections. so they wanted their slaves or three fifths of their slaves allocated in the votes, electoral votes made this possible, direct elections did not. so electoral votes are a relic of america's original sin of slavery. >> when you put it like that, it becomes even harder to defend. alan, let me bring you in here, as another fellow historian, take a listen to yourself, this is some sort of weird theme, we didn't plan it, but getting this election right. take a listen. >> 13 keys, it would predict a donald trump victory.

>> by the narrowest of possible margins, the keys still point to a trump victory. >> narrow, indeed. actually, underwater. what's your take? >> well, indeed, very narrow. now, look, trump is legitimately the president, because we are stuck with this 18th century relic. but it does make a big difference, what your mandate is. go back to 1876. the disputed election when the republican rutherford b. hayes won. that's the most comparable situation, because he also lost the popular vote pretty significantly. what did he say? he said, i am going to govern from the center, because we have a very divided country, and i'm going to be a one-term president, and he agreed to that. and so the mandate matters. and as part of that mandate, too, is your clear policy vision. and we know trump gave us no clear policy vision.

his policies shifted on a dime. he promised to drain the swamp in washington and as you earlier pointed out, he's giving the economy to goldman sachs and the state department to exxon. he's given the attorney generalship to one of the oldest hands in washington, jeff sessions. well, then you get into the fact that if we're going to get into history, alan, rutherford b. hayes tweeted late at night about some of the plays he didn't like and it was a big distraction for the country at the time. obviously, you're saying trump's taking a different view. put that in the context of his phone calls with the current president, which president obama referred to in his press conference today. is donald trump doing anything to outreach on acting on anything he's hearing, do you think, from this president? >> it doesn't appear like he's doing very much to listen to the advice of barack obama, who is kind of the anti-trump. you know, someone who's very cerebral, very policy oriented, very cautious.

i would say too cautious. he should have been out there months ago, decrying to the heavens that the russian meddling. donald trump has given no sign that he is going to unite the country and may well enter the white house with the lowest approval ratings of any newly inaugurated president in history. he's gone pretty far to the extreme. >> and let me go to park. is there any indicator on whether presidents who win this way are less likely to get re-elected in history? >> they are less likely to get re-elected. i don't think any candidate who's won with fewer votes got re-elected. one other thing i think we -- >> ten seconds, mark? >> i'm sorry, you're right, bush did win in 2004, and in a way 2011 clanged that occasion completely. we're going to have another runner-up presidency quite soon, because the parties are so evenly divided and we need to think about that and prepare for that. >> and that's a big call to think about reform, as you mentioned, a lot of the history when you learn about it, leaves you wondering whether this is the right system.

but that's what america is here to debate. thank you both. thank you for watching at home. i am ari melber. you can find me on facebook at facebook.com/ari melber or e-mail me about reforming the electoral college or anything else at ari@msnbc.com. thanks for watching. "hardball" starts right now. obama hits putin and the press. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm joy reid in new york in for chris matthews. president obama delivered a strong message today in his year-end news conference, backing the intelligence community's assessment that russia meddled in the 2016 election. he made it clear that, yes, vladimir putin was involved, and he said there would be an american response at the time and place of our choosing. >> the intelligence that i've seen gives me great confidence in their assessment that the