joining me for insight and analysis are tom goodwin. tom freedman, columnist for the "new york times," nbc news political analyst michael steele and kimberly strassel, columnist

for the wall street journal. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> the longest running show in television history celebrating its 70th year. this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good sunday morning. you heard that right. we are beginning our 70th year on the air, a year-long celebration. we'll have more on that later in the show. let's get down to business. for the second straight saturday, the new trump presidency was met with frustration, anger and protests. but unlike last week's massive planned demonstrations, yesterday's were spontaneous and had to do with specific action by president trump. the president's steps to, in effect, prevent some muslims from entering the country led to dozens of people with permanent resident status being detained at american airports. that led to protests at those airports all around the country. many others at airports across the globe en route to the united states were simply told to go home. the wild scenes at u.s. airports included seattle seatac where

authorities had to use pepper spray is some protesters. then last night a federal court in brooklyn blocked the president's actions, simply keeping those from being detained at the early hours of this order. the scene at american airports was a result of the first week of the american presidency, proposals on everything from a proposed tax on foreign made goods to the mexican wall to the ditching of the trans-pacific trade deal. but it was this travel ban that had the most immediate repercussions. at airports around the country, celebration after judge ann donnelly of the federal district court in brooklyn citing imminent danger of irreparable injury blocked the deportation of people stranded in u.s. airports who had arrived in the united states with valid visas or refugee status. the emergency stay followed a

day of protests around the country after at least 375 travelers were either prevented from flying or barred entry to the united states. >> it is unconstitutional. and it will be overturned. >> reporter: hameed darwish, who worked for the u.s. military for nearly a decade as interpreter and engineer, was held at jfk airport until granted a waiver. >> i worked for the governor, but when i came here, they said no. they thought i broke the rules or did something wrong. >> president trump suspended the u.s. borders for seven days and barred syrian refugees indefinitely. and mr. trump established a religious test for refugees from those muslim countries, allowing an exception for christians and others from minority religions. >> it's not a muslim ban, but we are totally prepared to work it out very nicely.

you see it at the airports, you see it all over. >> reporter: the aclu disagrees. >> this executive order is not only unamerican, it's unconstitutional. it flies in the face of protection of due process and equal protection. it violates domestic statutes and acts of congress. we also believe it may violate the commencement against torture. it may also, we believe, violate the first amendment. >> in his first week in office, president trump unleashed a flood of executive orders on abortion, immigration and trade. mr. trump started the process to build a wall along the mexican border. signed another order to cut off funds to stananctuary cities an ordered a comprehensive plan for undou undocumented aliens.

americans would likely pay nor for all kinds of imports and some conservatives in congress are pushing back. senator lindsey graham tweeting, simply put, any policy proposal which drives up cost of corona, tequila or margaritas is a big, bad idea. >> to those who like corona, i'm going to protect the price of corona. >> busy first nine days, so joining me now is president trump's chief of staff, reince priebus. mr. priebus, welcome back to the show, sir. >> thanks for having me, chuck. >> i want to start with timing on the executive order and the sense of urgency in trying to implement it immediately. was there any thought given of creating a 72-hour grace period, a one-week grace period in order to allow border patrol agents to understand what the rules are, allow agencies in the federal government to understand what the rules are? it seems that a lot of the chaos yesterday could have been avoided had you at least included some sort of timed grace period. why was that not included? >> i don't think you want to have a grace period, chuck,

because then people who want to do bad things to americans would just move up their travel date two days in order to get into the country before the grace period is over. so i think it's one of these things that -- and if you ask a lot of people at customs and border patrol, they will just tell you you have to rip off the band-aid and move forward. it wasn't chaos. the fact of the matter is 325,000 people from foreign countries came into the united states yesterday, and 109 people were detained for further questioning. most of those people were moved out. we've got a couple dozen more that remain, and i would suspect as long as they're not awful people, that they will move through before another half a day today. and perhaps some of these people should be detained further, and if there are folks that shouldn't be in this country, they're going to be detained. so apologize for nothing here. >> okay. you don't think that anything -- there was no decision, you didn't put out any of the rules in advance to some of these agencies. why not? >> no, chuck, of course we're

working with the agencies. we were working with the agencies for a long time. i'm not going to get into every little conversation that was had, but this was not an extraordinary that was simply signed from the white house and suddenly transferred to the department of homeland security. they knew full well what was going on, and they conducted themselves yesterday pursuant to the order. >> one of the things in the order apparently is to include green card holders, and that is something that there has been a report that the homeland security indicated it did not include green card holders. why did you decide to overrule the department of homeland security on that one? >> we didn't, but as far as green card holders, it doesn't affect them. if you're coming in and out of one of those seven countries, by the way, identified by the obama administration as seven of the most dangerous countries in the world has harboring terrorists,

then you're going to be subjected temporarily with more questioning until a better program is put in place over the next several months. this is something 75 to 80% of americans out there agree with. we don't want people who are traveling back and forth to one of these seven countries that harbor terrorists to be traveling freely back and forth between the united states and those countries. >> you just said something at the beginning of your answer, and it seemed like an aside. this order does not impact any green card holders from these seven countries? >> of course, it does. if you're traveling back and forth you're going to be subjected to further screening. >> let me ask you this. are you going to do that to american citizens as well that travel in and out of these seven countries? >> i would suspect that if you're an american citizen traveling back and forth to libya, you're likely to be subjected to further questioning when you come into an airport. >> let me ask you this. why are you confident that's constitutional, and i'll ask it this way, because green card holders, they go through extreme

vetting to get the green card, number one. but number two, when they get that green card, they're entitled to all the protections that citizens do. >> i'm not suggesting that. >> i understand that, but are you, by having to put in an extra hurdle for a green card holder in order to get back into the country, how are you confident that doesn't violate their rights and it doesn't end up making this order unconstitutional? >> first of all, the order is not affecting green card holders moving forward, okay? that's number one. >> i'm confused by that. you keep saying "going forward." you just said it did. i'm confused. you said it does. >> if you would just slow down for a second and listen, i could answer your question. >> i understand that, but you've twice confused me so i'm trying to understand the clarity. >> it's because you don't stop talking, chuck. i love you, but let me answer the question. if you are a person -- this is in regard to the executive order. the executive order doesn't affect green card holders moving forward, i've said that. customs in bordered control, i

would expect, if they have a person traveling back and forth to libya or somalia or yemen, i would suspect that in their discretion they might ask a few more questions at jfk or some other airport when someone is coming back and forth within their discretionary authority as a customs and border patrol agent. what i'm saying is i would suspect that most americans would agree that might be a good thing to do. what i'm not suggesting to you is that is in the order moving forward. i'm suggesting that within the discretion of the cbp that those questions would likely be asked. >> okay. you say it doesn't affect green card holders moving forward, but you just said it does impact green card holders from those seven countries. those two things don't compute. >> it computes, chuck, because there is discretionary authority that a customs and border patrol agent has when they suspect that someone is up to no good that's traveling back and forth to libya or yemen. i'm not suggesting it's in the order, i'm suggesting that at

every level in an airport, a customs and border patrol agent has the authority to use their discussion to ask questions. that's all we're talking about. we're off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the executive order. >> let me ask about the executive order because the country has chosen, and i know you say these are countries caudified by congress, chose bin the obama administration. but here's what i'm confused about. when you look at those folks who have committed terrorist acts in these countries, killed americans, pakistan, saudi arabia and egypt, you've had more terrorists come from those three countries than any of the seven that you have. in fact, in the case of saudi arabia, more have come from saudi arabia to kill americans than the seven countries combin combined. why was saudi arabia, afghanistan and pakistan and egypt not included on this list if you are so concerned about this issue. >> we are concerned about the issue, chuck, and that's why we

put these seven countries initially into the executive order that were identified previously by congress, by both the house and the senate, and the obama administration as being the seven most watched countries in regard to but you bring up a good point. perhaps other countries needed to be added to an executive order going forward. but in order to do this in a way that was expeditious and in a way that would pass muster quickly, we used the seven countries that have already been identified and caudified by both the obama administration and congress. this is all done for the protection of americans, and waiting another three days, and waiting another three weeks is something that we don't want to get wrong. president trump is not willing to get this wrong, which is why he wants to move forward quickly and protect americans. >> just to clear things up, the trump organization as business ties in a couple of the

countries, that were, is there any impact why saudi arabia wasn't included on the list? >> like i just said very clearly, the countries that have been chosen. it does not mean that other countries needed to be added later to a. at a 325. with 120 people detained from other countries, moving out of the system and moofg forward. this is, i believe, going to be a very smooth and successful operation for americans across the country. >> we move on to a couple other things.

the. >>. tlfts a mention of the victims of the. and then it turns out there was. the final solution was aimed solely at the jews. the holocaust was about the jews. there was no prouder way to offer remembrance of the jus but to all who suffered is to scrub the holocaust of. >> do you have any idea why the white house was oe fentd and not a. i had expected, obviously, that was what the holocaust was about.

it's a hoor ribl and certainly will never forget the jewish people that suffered in world war ii. obviously still incredible wounds that remain in a time of history that was of great, incredible, horrific magnitude, and everyone's heart here is impacted by the memory of that terrible time. and so for the record, that's the case, and certainly we don't mean any ill will to anybody. >> does the president regret it? >> i don't know about regret. >> there's no regret acknowledging the pain that -- >> we acknowledged the horrible time for the holocaust and what it. it's a terrible time in mift

that are jewish, and there was no harm or will. you don't regret the statement, you don't regret the words that we were. vnl. and the jewish people affected and the miz venerable genocide that occurred is something we consider to be extraordinarily sad and not to be forgotten, and if we could wipe it off the history books, we could, and we can't. it's terrible. i don't know what else to tell you. >> one last question. an executive order. the president reorganized the national security council and, look, he can put anybody on it that he wants. what i'm curious about is why is the top intelligence official in this country and the top military official in this country not a full-time member

of the national security council in the trump administration? >> they are. if you read the order, chuck, they're invited to be attendees of the security council at any time that they want to -- >> no, that is not what it said. it said when it's necessary -- essentially it looked like invite only. so you're saying every security council meeting should include the chairman of joint chiefs and the intelligence? >> they're included any time they want to be included, if you read the order. >> so it's not correct, then, because in the order it said it was sort of as needed. >> if you read the order, they're invited as attendees to the security council at any time. >> all right, reince priebus, chief of staff for the president. we have a lot of other stuff to get to, but it's been a busy morning. hopefully we'll see you again soon, sir. >> thank you. when we come back, how should the democrats respond to president trump? go along when they can or scorched earth opposition? i'll ask the man who had reason to believe he would be the vice

president of the united states today, senator tim kaine.

welcome back. panelists here, michael steele, kimberly strassel, and tom freedman, columnist for the "new york times." i'm supposed to be plugging your book, still. thank you for being late. i think i've plugged it quite a few times, but that is good. i thought dan ball summed up this week pretty well in the "washington post" when he said this week is everything trump supporters could have hoped for and everything trump opponents could have feared. kim, what say you? >> this is a president who is showing he is going to fulfill all those campaign promises and take action. this is also a president who, i think sometimes, allows his own missteps to get in the way of his successes. he did a lot of stuff this week that was important and good for the economy. but some of it was overshadowed by back and forth and attendance and crowds and voter fraud and a diplomatic tiff with mexico.

and we'll see if there is any greater discipline going forward. >> discipline? tom freedman, i don't know, but then again, donald trump doesn't mind the chaos. >> you know, chuck, one of the points i actually make in my book is from a systems analyst named lynn wells who says you shouldn't think in the box, you shouldn't think out of the box. you should always think without a box. what he mept ant by that is the world is seamlessly integrated. climate and the environment, they're all interwoven. think of some of the policies we heard this week. one is we want to keep immigrants out. we're one of the greatest immigration flows happening in the world today? they're actually coming from central africa and europe and not mexico. both are hampered by the same problem, population and climate change, okay? the collapse of small scale agriculture. what does this administration come up full scale against? a family planning technology by

the u.s. government and climate change is a complete myth. now let's talk about the wall. we're going to protect ourselves from mexico by building a wall. how many americans know, i dare ask, chuck, does president trump know, that if you fly into mexico from baghdad or damascus, do you know your name pops up on homeland security here? we have a seamless mexicans goi feel about keeping that going when we're building a high wall? same with economics. the president says we're going to have a 20% tariff on mexican goods. so prices i will go up to american companies. remember what happened on 9/11? on 9/11 the supply chain that goes from canada to new mexico completely collapsed, completely disrupted our auto industry. so what's going to happen if prices go up? american companies will build those factories here and they'll completely roboticize them. there will be no jobs. >> that's the fear. >> in some ways mr. trump is a

magici magician. something that happened this week were the executive orders and yet we were caught up, understandably, in things he said about the press. he's deflecting. it's like sleight of hand. the whole thing that upset me the most was the thing about the press. it's one thing to do like fdr did and use the radio and tweets instead. lbj once said, if i walk on the potomac one afternoon, the president would say, the president can't swim is. but when you deny objective reality, the one thing he did was reject objective reality and he regretted it for the rest of his life. >> let's go to this ban. what he's interested in is they tried to drop the ban and the president said, it's not a

muslim ban. but what was amazing here is that there is a lot of republican discomfort, but they're expressing it by being quiet, not saying anything. not praising it and not denouncing it. how much patience do mainstream republicans have? >> that's going to be the real test. the reality is they have been patient on a number of things. you've got the president who is floating a trillion dollars on new spending in infrastructure. you've got the controversy in mexico. even though folks are all about the wall, they also recognize what you laid out, tom, in terms of the effects of it. so here you get in this space which has its own levels of complication. republicans in large measure really would like the administration to slow down, to be honest. they would like things to just take another day or two to think it through so you don't then have the pile-up with what we've seen in this current decision. the exchange between you and rice about the green cards, well, the order says what the order says, and so you can say

what you want about what you thought the green cards were in or not in, but the reality of it is republicans and others are looking at what's on the paper, and that's what people will be responding to. so there is a hesitancy right now. >> the green card thing is pretty straightforward. the point i think he was trying to make is if you have a green card, you're not going to be kept out of the country but you will be subjected to further questioning. >> and that's the issue, whether that's constitutional. that may not be constitutional and that could be where this order gets stayed. >> this is not unprecedented, by the way. barack obama put a pause on six months for refugees coming from iraq in 2011. i don't remember protesters and i don't remember lawsuits. so i think the bigger question, if this is a temporary pause, which is designed for us to improve and look at our vetting processes and indeed temporary, i don't necessarily think that's an outrageous idea. but the bigger question should be implementation. did you get it right from the start? >> that's what people are nervous about. >> some things are true even if donald trump believes them.

i think we always have to remember that. one thing that is true is we live in an age where there is 60,000 migrants living in the world. so there is a need, i think, to sit back and say, how do we respond to that? what is the commercial interests we have, what is the ethical interests we have, historical commitment. it really needs to be thought out, i think. you do that carefully. and it seems to be one of the terrible signals we may be sending to a lot of people is, just don't go there. remember, this is an iphone. the guy who conceived this iphone was conceived by an immigrant to the university of wisconsin. his name was abdul fata vengali. he was steve jobs' biological father. he was from syria. with that i'm going to pause there. we'll be back in a moment with the former future vice president of the united states, virginia senator tim kaine.

welcome back. democrats are still trying to deal with president trump. hillary clinton's former running mate, here is senator tim kaine.

>> chuck, glad to be with you. >> let me get your reaction to this executive order and to reince priebus' defense of it. is there any part of the idea of pausing the refugee program that you support, even if you don't support how president trump worded it in this order? >> well, chuck, i'll just go right to what reince said. he demonstrated complete confusion about what the order did because he went back and forth in the interview with you over whether it did or did not affect green card holders. it does affect green card holders and they're being caught up in it. it affects people on special immigrant visas like interpreters who have helped the u.s. military in foreign countries, and now their lives are at risk, so we've given them a special status to come to this country. who would help the united states if they knew we would abandon them when they're trying to come here? it's a religious test, as you pointed out. it imposes a different burden on muslims than others.

the irony is not lost on me that it was issued the same day as the white house issued their holocaust remembrance day proclamation that unlike any previous administration removed all reference to jews. so you put a religious test on muslims and you try to scrub reference to jews in the holocaust remembrance. so this was horribly, horribly mishandled. so it's not a pause in a traditional sense. >> senator, it's a tough charge. do you think it's more than a coincidence that it all happened on friday? >> i think all of these things are happening together. when you have the chief political adviser in the white house, steve bannon, who is connected with a news organization that traffics in white supremacy and anti-semitism and they put out a holocaust statement that omits any mention of jews, remember, they've done these statements,

so you pull up and see what earlier statements said. earlier statements, president obama, president bush, always talk about the holocausting connection with the slaughter of jews. the final solution was about the slaughter of jews. we have to remember this. this is what holocaust denial is. it's either to deny that it happened, or many holocausters acknowledged, yeah, people were killed, but it was a lot of innocent people. jews weren't targeted. the fact they did that and imposed this religious test against muslims in the executive orders on the same day, this is not a coincidence. >> let me ask you something that treat twooeted yesterday. you said this. if we turn our backs on the very people we despise, we we do not

defeat our enemies, we seizure rend to them. howard dean said, tim, this is great but the dems in the senate actually have to do something about this stuff. >> they had safe care rallies around the united states. tens of thousands of people participated. my colleagues and i were thrilled at this massive peaceful protest last weekend to hold the trump administration accountable. many of us participated in that. we are holding trump nominees' feet to the fire, demonstrating to the world that many of them are either unqualified or extreme or ethically challenged. and i'll tell you, chuck, i have never seen calls to my office from folks the way i've seen them over these cabinet nominees, and that's because a lot of us on the democratic side are casting a spotlight on what they're doing. the notion that, you know, there is a base and there's elected officials, we're all in this together. here's what we think. the trump administration is posed to do horrible danger to our country, our values, our people and our reputation.

and we're going to do everything we can in congress, in the courts, in ballot boxes, on line and in peaceful protest to make sure this administration doesn't hurt the country that we love. >> does this mean that you're not going to work with him where you can? >> well, let me tell you something. i'll give you an example. i voted for generals kelly and general mattis to be part of the national security team, secretaries of homeland security and defense. so i voted for them. why? because the national security council is critically important to our thinking about challenges, and the national security -- the council sadly has some really questionable people on it. the national security adviser, general flynn, is a pro-russian conspiracy theorist. the administration just added steve bannon with his ties to an organization that supports anti-semitism and the security council. so we put general mattis in

place because we want to save this country. will there be other areas where -- here's another example. >> okay. >> eight years ago, democrats and president obama made a major investment in the infrastructure in this country. no republican supported it, but democrats did it and it helped the country. and if president trump wants to do that, we'll work with him on it. hopefully maybe a republican will vote for it this time. we're not closing the door on doing what's right for the good of the country, but right now we think this administration poses a real threat to our reputation, our values and our people, and we're going to battle. >> let me ask you one final question here, which is on dnc chair. you're a former dnc chair. who would you like to see run the party? i know a lot of obama and clinton supporters are behind the feds. are you? >> i haven't done an endorsement check, and i'll tell you why. the senate is the emergency break on this administration.

i've decide mid highest and best use is to be a hard-working senator and focus on using the tools we have in the best way we can to check this administration. doing other things like getting involved in the dnc, it's just not the big priority for me right now. i don't want to take my eye off the ball in doing what i need to do to protect this country. >> that could send a message to some democrats that you don't see the dnc as important a vehicle right now as other organizations. >> i will tell you, chuck, if i wasn't in the senate right now, i would be very engaged in this dnc matter, because it's important. but i should be spending every minute i have working with my democratic colleagues, whether it's the russia investigation, saving the affordable care act, making sure we don't put somebody out of the mainstream on the supreme court. that's what i need to be focused on right now. >> there's a lot more i want to get to, but time is always an enemy. senator kaine, thanks for coming on. i appreciate you sharing your

views. when we come back, the president and the press. we may be looking at the worst relationship between the white house and the press corps since watergate. speaking of water gate, later in the broadcast, a man who covered wat watergate for us, tom brokaw. he is celebrating his 50 years in the news. we kick off our own celebration: 730 yea 70 years on the air. preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula the national eye institute recommends to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd after 15 years of clinical studies. preservision areds 2. because my eyes are everything. "how to win at business." step one: point decisively with the arm of your glasses. abracadabra. the stage is yours. step two: choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly and win at business.

back now with the panel. we just spoke with a democrat doris. they have another idea of who the opposition party is. here is donald trump in an interview this week with the christian broadcasting network.

>> i think the media is the opposition party. the dishonesty, total deceit and deception makes them certainly part of the opposition party, absolutely. i think they're much more capable than the opposition party. the opposition party is losing badly. >> what do you think the president is doing here, doris? by highlighting the media as the opposition party, is it a way of delegitimizing the democrats even more? >> i'm not worried about them, i'm just worried about the media. the concern i have about the democrats right now is they have to analyze honestly why they lost. and they didn't lose just in washington, and they can't just be an opposition party in washington. i don't see how they can. they have to become a reverse tea party. they have to go out to middle america and figure it out. lincoln once said you have to figure out where you came from to know where to go next. it can't just be anti-trump. they have to reach out to the values of the democratic party. it's going to be hard, but they've got to have a positive

about -- it didn't work in the campaign to just be anti-trump. it's not going to work in the opposition, either. >> doris put her finger on it. i remember two weeks after barack obama had been na inaugerated, and i'm like, what do i do next? the base is all over the place. you have to figure out where you came from. we came from the desert '06, '08. the messaging is critical. those who are running for chairmanship of the party don't have a galvanizing message. they don't have a way to animate the base. the base is going one direction, then those other democrats kind of watching this whole episode are going, okay, we'll just wait and see. that is not a good space fort democrats right now. >> single most important right now politically is the meeting donald trump had with union leaders on monday.

>> the trades. >> the pipefitter, the sheet metal workers, and you didn't see a single union member there. those union members came out hugely enthusiastic from that meeting. if democrats don't remember that those are the people that they need to keep on board -- because part of the problem here, let's not forget, is the policies. why are they thrilled with donald trump? because he signed executive orders on the keystone pipeline and on the dakota pipeline. well, this is heretical to guys like howard dean. >> tom harkins, the old labor guys, they would have loved that stuff. >> i'm a big believer that people don't listen through their ears, they listen through their stomach. if you connect with them at a gut level, they don't listen to the details. you don't connect with them at a gut level, you can't show them the details. democrats have to find a way to connect to the gut concerns of a lot of these middle americans and then take them into a more

progressive direction. but that's going to take some real rethinking, i think, of the whole platform in general. >> the republicans did that in 1964 after goldwater's huge w l walloping. they had think tanks, they rethought. it could be a challenging moment, but unless they honestly understand what happened -- >> in 2005 we went from think tanks to grassroots, and that was the difference. >> does anybody know who the leader of the democratic party is right now? >> maybe it's a young person out there, somebody we don't know. a torch that's been passed to a new generation. it's got to be out there. >> but nobody knows who grabbed the torch. >> we're waiting. i'm going to take a quick pause. we are literally coming right back before we go, by the way. remember to check out our podcast. this week i talked to ari fleisher about whether the media is the opposition party. it's a fascinating conversation. you can find it in itunes and the apple podcast app. when we come back, the

republicans struggle with the repeal part of repeal and replace when it comes to obamacare. audi pilotless vehicles have conquered highways, mountains, and racetracks. and now much of that same advanced technology is found in the audi a4. with one notable difference...

♪ the highly advanced audi a4, with available traffic jam assist. ♪

back with the panel once again. voter fraud? no, never mind. mexico -- didn't get to that. then there was this leak, audio leak, from the congressional republican retreat when they were clearly having a session of, all right, how the heck are we going to replace obamacare? kim strassel, everything that was leaked out, nothing was

surprising. they're worried about the politics, they're worried about making it affordable. they're worried about everything they should be worried about, but it also served as a reminder to me, they better not rush. >> if i'm a republican leader, i'm probably thrilled this came out and leaked. it shows they are focused on the right questions. they may not have all the answers yet. who can? this is a very complicated market. but they're talking about what do we do to make sure the most number of people have this? they've got very good ideas they're debating back and forth. they look like people who are deliberating over the issues you would like congress to be deliberating over. also, as you said, it puts out the fact that still more debating needs to be done and potentially maybe gives a little grace period in congress to work on this. >> here's the rub. you've had six, now seven years to figure this out. so the fact that you're sitting in a room in philadelphia at this stage, having a discussion about how you're going to replace the very thing that you've been fighting against for the last six years is a problem.

so in one sense, yes, the leak is a good thing -- >> i don't think that's true. they knew they were going to do it. they tried to. >> you've been telling the base, you've been telling the country, we're going to repeal and replace. >> that's the problem. >> you're going for a change. >> for the guy who won the presidency with one paragraph. now they're struggling to get the second paragraph in. think about isis. i'm going to wipe isis off the face of the earth. we have to take mosul into deep sunni air cooperations. tell iraqis you're not welcome. being our allies, go take the field, die for what we believe in. good luck with that. good luck getting sunni allies. >> go back to what michael said. the real problem for president

trump is his support, his base are the things that are likely to be hurt. when social security was passed republicans thought they could go against it. they started putting spoofs against it in 1936. roosevelt won by a huge majority. >> it's difficult for many people out there to think it can be worse than it is. >> it is. it does appear that republicans, whatever they replace, it is going to be a permanent infrastructure for health care for the century which is something you could argue they were fighting against for a while. >> look, i think what people also under estimate or miss is that when you look at the broad planks of what is going to happen, of course they know what they're going to do. you're going to have insurance you can buy across state lines. you're going to have tax credits for some of the people. you're going to get rid of some of the mandates to bring costs down. a lot of it is about details around the edge and the time line and how you actually deal with the mess. >> the costs. >> and the costs and how you pay for it.

>> and how you pay for it. >> exactly. >> big government. >> all right. i can take another quick break. we'll be back in 45 seconds with our end game segment. we're marking "meet the press's" 75th year on the air. i'll do it with tom brokaw who's celebrating his own anniversary, 50 years with nbc news. >> end game brought to you by boeing, always working to build something better.

whfight back fastts, with tums smoothies. it starts dissolving the instant it touches your tongue. and neutralizes stomach acid at the source. ♪ tum -tum -tum -tum smoothies! only from tums

this is nbc bringing you the latest news. >> in the north, south, east and west. >> it's america's press conference on the air. >> from washington, the world's longest running television program. >> "meet the press." >> celebrating its 70th year. >> if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." >> i could watch that open over and over again. this morning we're beginning our 70th anniversary celebration. it's been 7-0, 70 years. yes, we are the longest running show on television, take that bart simpson. who better to kick things off than a man who's celebrating his own anniversary. tom brokaw is celebrating 50 years. he's been a regular on "meet the press" and was a moderator. so he's the bridge that connects these two celebrations.

tom, you've been thinking about all of this a lot, your career, the span of it all. what's it all mean to you? >> well, one of the things i'm thinking this morning is the first time i appeared on "meet the press" was a sunday morning after the saturday night massacre. "meet the press" was always the high church of washington talk shows. i'm very happy to report, and i can do this in a completely nonpartisan fashion, you have maintained that standard all along. i think what we're seeing once again is the importance of a dynamic dialogue in this country about what's going on. i've seen a lot of transitions. i've never seen one quite as seismic as this one. so many plates are in motion internationally, domestically and otherwise. and it's going to require i think on the part of the press, those of us who do this, a kind of patience, if you will, and taking the long view. >> it's interesting when we talk about the press and we talked about it earlier in the show, about the comparisons maybe between a white house and a press that was very similar to

nixon and the press core, in fact, i'm going to throw a brief highlight from your special tonight that is very "meet the press" centric that is from those nixon years. here it is. >> at his last meeting with the white house press i quoted legal experts who said executive privilege does not apply in impeachment proceedings. >> my question is this, aren't your statements to that matter historically inaccurate or at least misleading? >> mr. brokaw, so far as the principle of confidentiality is concerned, that principle still stands. >> the supreme court ruled against nixon. >> this appears to be the final day of his administration. >> in august 1974 he became the first president to resign his office. but we met several times again, including in 1988 on "meet the press." >> do you see anything that you might have done differently?

>> well, i suppose i could have treated the press better. >> i wasn't looking for that necessarily. >> but then they might have treated me better. >> there you go, tom. that was a fascinating -- i wonder if one day a former president trump might say the same thing. >> you know me, chuck, the unforeseen will be occurring. i do remember after i asked that question, and be i worked hard on getting all the legal experts to reinforce what i thought would be the case, the next morning ron ziegler came to me and took me apart because i had been disrespectful, in his words, to the president. now it was the president's last appearance before the white house press core. we were in a very different set of circumstances now, in part because there is nothing that is not known. the screen is so crowded in so many ways and it plays out and everyone has a kind of philosophical investment in what is going on. so i'm going to be interested in how this particular phase of the trump presidency plays out with

the consequences may be. i think there's something worth remembering here. the members of the senate who are republicans are going to have to go back and run on the trump policies in their various states. they've got to be thinking about that as well. >> that's for sure. as you know, the campaign of 2018 is probably going to be upon us sooner than we think. tom, thank you, sir. remember, the special broadcast "tom brokaw at nbc news the first 50 years" airs tonight at 9:00 p.m. no football, brokaw. that's what you're doing sunday night. that's all we have today. we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." >> you can see more end game in post game sponsored by boeing on the "meet the press" facebook page.

due to mature subject matter, viewer discretion is advised. i'm going to show you what i'm made of! >> he's easily one of the most volatile inmates to appear on "lockup." >> so help me god they going to transfer me. but now is it possible he's discovered true love? >> we've been together four years. it's just something that happened. >> this man ranks as one of the most talked about inmates featured on "lockup." >> look at his eyes. >> they're tattooed. >> they're what? >> but now he's out of prison and his tattooed eyeballs