hour of msnbc live. my colleague katy tur pick up coverage from here. >> hey there craig. thanks to you at home for sticking with me this hour. any moment we expect to see the president kick off a cyber security meeting at the white house. before signing an executive order to investigate america's cyber vulnerabilities. a contentious few hours in washington. democrats boycotting hearings and debates to confirm trump's cabinet with half a dozen nominees in the focus. as fallout continues from trump's executive action on imoperation and firing the attorney general who quote refused to get in line. responding to this morning's chaos the homeland security secretary sounding off about what he knew and when. moments ago the white house weighed in. >> ms yates failed to enforce a legal order appved by the department of justice's office of legal counsel calling for vetting of travelers from seven

nation is not extreme. it's reasonable and necessary to protect our country. i think it's regrettable there was some confusion on the rollout of this. no one wanted to see people with green cards or special immigrant visas like translators get caught up in all of this. >> we didn't know the eo was coming. people were involved in the general drafting of it. >> the president reveals his supreme court pick later tonight. we have a team of reporters. let's start with hallee jackson right outside the white house on the north lawn. i was struck by a question you asked in the briefing. you are talking a vow, a campaign idea donald trump had while he was campaigning talking about he thinks that the families of terrorists should be targeted. this is news again today because of that strike in yemen and news that an 8-year-old girl was also killed in the attack, a family

member of a terrorist or an alleged terrorist at the very least. you asked sean spicer about this and he seemed to make a little bit of news with a question that was a follow-up to yours, right? >> yeah, katie, interesting because secretary sean spicer i would say demurred when asked about the campaign statement that the president made in december of 2015 indicating that he would encourage or permit the targeting of families of terror suspects. spicer said that the president now when asked if this was his current policy would defer to his cia directan on that question. but he said no american would be targeted under president trump. this is something that as the next four years develop might be witness you want to have on the several to pull out if need be. i think it is significant because of the raid in yemen. we know that the president has reached out to the service member who was killed in that raid over the weekend. this first one ordered under this administration.

i would note also in the briefing things got testy with the media as it has occasionally the last 12 days or so including with our colleague kristen welker who pressed spicer on his insistence this executive order is not a travel ban despite the president himself in a tweet which i think if we can pull it up calling it a ban. spicer said the president is simply using the word of the media but the words of the president as you have posted is a ban. obviously a lot of looking ahead to tonight as well with the supreme court pick set to be announced at 8:00 in the east room here at the white house. >> another example in a long list of times when trump said something and his aides have to go in and try to clean it up only to have donald trump say the exact same thing over again.

we are going to find out how the president now tweets going forward. hallee jackson at the white house thank you very much. i want to play some back and forth between sean spicer and the press a moment ago in regards to homeland security security adviser john kelly and who new about the executive order on immigration before it was released. john kelly being somebody there has been questions about whether or not he was fully briefed with what was exactly going to be written down and said. white house spoind spoernd entz got into it with sean spicery moment ago. listen to a little bit of this exchange. >> saerngs i have a couple of questions. i want to go back to the issue of this travel ban. >> first of all it's not a travel ban. i think you heard secretary kelly -- i apologize. i just want to make sure i get this straight. i think secretary kelly or one of the individuals that got it from dhs, i think a million people have now come into this country. that's not a ban.

>> can we expect that secretaries, agency heads when their future executive orders or changes of policy may not receive full briefings. >> look, the secretary was briefed on multiple occasions with the language of the order. i don't know how you can say this any other way. >> i'm just talking about a full briefing which is what the "new york times" reported. >> i'm telling you i don't believe the "new york times" reporting is accurate. >> trump's presser saying he doesn't belief the "new york times" reporting is accurate. but the "new york times" was very clear about what it said that john kelly did not get a full brief audioing. john kelly not denying that today at his press conference saying he knew donald trump was going to come out with the eo, executive order that's our shorthand for it. but refusing to say when he knew. this is not an issue of semantics us being nitpicking over when someone knew something and when they didn't know something. ar aye medical better is here to

tell us why it is important and why it normally goes through cabinet members, including the dhs before an executive order that bans travel, if you want to use that word or restricts travel actually gets put into effect. >> these aren't just words. these are words that have the force of law that affect what happens to people who enter or don't enter the country. that affects our security and how much danger we are in. it also affects our rights and whether people who previously have been told they are americans or legal residents get those rights or not. so this is all very big and important. there is so much going on because of the style of governance here that i think it's easy for people to lose track. the fact that everything the trump administration is doing is loud or different does not mean it's automatically wrong. we are here look at a week where the trump administration is correct that the president has the right to pick his own people to the justice department. and as long as the courts or the

office of legal counsel have not held something to be unlawful they may relieve someone if there is a disagreement about that. it may be loud or dramatic, but the trump administration is right about that. here's something that the trump administration is wrong about. it is not okay or consistent with the administrative procedures act and the way department of homeland security runs for the dhs to rely on outdated campaign pledges from a candidate as the basis of understanding how an executive order will be promulgated. >> johncaly said he knew about it two years ago. it didn't really exist two years ago. under that frame, it was a muslim ban. >> that would seem to be a big problem. i mean dhs secretary kelly saying today i knew about it from, quote, like two years ago when trump first started to run for president. katy tur, as you know from being there. >> not quite two years ago. >> if you b.a. go back to when he first started to run for president.

you were there in the primary. he said he was going to institute a religious ban on muslims. one of the core claims of the administration is that's not what they are doing and this is not an outgrowth of that. stay tuned because that will be tested in court. if the dhs is saying today that's a direct quote this was when their understanding that this was going to happen that is wrong. time point, the dhs knows the details, the reason why there have been three positions on people with green cards is because people who didn't know the procedures -- >> ari medical better, always thorough because of course you are a lawyer. nowet's go over to kelly o'donnell who our capitol hill kpoernent. on this idea of this executive order, this immigration restriction, the firing of sally yates shouldn't necessarily be

surprising. of course she was a holdover from the obama administration. ultimately jeff sessions if he gets confirmed is going to replace her. i want to and you about whether that speeds up the time line for jeff sessions. more importantly, my question to you is what does this say to members of congress and members on both sides about the trump administration's appetite for dissenting views even if they are dissenting views with some basis in the law? or argument in the law? >> we've heard a lot today katy from members who are on the senate judiciary committee. it's divided down the line. democrats are extremely supportive of sally yates and think she stood up for principles and did an honorable thing and on the flip said republicans who say that the office of legal counsel, basically the justice department green lighted this executive order and therefore they determined that yates was not following the law and trying to

engage in her own policy. sharply differing views. does it affect jeff sessions? i don't think it affects the confirming but it has affected the environment of how people are viewing his nomination and the kind of issues that could be on his table if he is elevated to the position that he has long wanted. there is certainly an understanding that this administration, new as it is, is continuing to have a confro confrontational spirit. and so i think that, the firing certainly put people on notice that there will be the punch/counter-punch and that will 34r5i out. at the same time because sally yates was appointed by president obama and she has served in both republican and democratic bosses over the years but they view it as an obama holdover. so it didn't raise the temperature quite as much as some of the historical examples nixon and the saturday night mass car and that type of thing. different. one of the tactics that the democrats are able to use and

they are using is an obscure rule -- you know i love when i get to bring out the senate rule book. they are invoking the two hour rule. what that means is that all the committee hearings on all of the different topics have to stop within two hours of the senate day beginning. that means basically all the work for committees is ground to a halt for the rest of this day and they can reconvene tomorrow. there are historical reasons why that was done. but today it has political implications. they want to be able to use the rules to slow things down. they have more questions they want to haven a answered in certain cases and they also want to amp up some of the more vulnerable nominees. that's part of what we are saying play out. >> strategy seems to be delay, delay, delay. coming up in just a little bit we'll talk -- kelly o'donnell, first of to, thank you. coming up we will talk to senator patrick leahy a lib more about this delay and his feelings about jeff sessions. moving on, the removal of acting attorney general sally yates has some democrats crying

deja vu. lawmakers on the left say president trump's actions last night remind them of a saturday night back in 1973 when president nixon purged doj officials. but this suspect quite the same. back then nixon fired the special prosecutor who was investigating the watergate scandal. cox conducted a detailed investigation into the nixon white house and found the president was guilty of many abuses of power. soon after that, cox was recease leased. nixon's attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned in protest. the series of resignations became known as the saturday night massacre. we had a monday night massacre. sally yates, a person of great integrity, who follows the law, was fired by the president. she was fired because she would not enact, pursue the executive order on the belief that it was illegal.

perhaps unconstitutional. >> you see it right there, senator chuck schumer calling it a monday night massacre. joining me from los angeles john dean. john, there is literally nobody in the world who is better to talk about this than you at the moment at the very least. >> thank you katey. >> do you feel like the democrats are posturing here, using this to their advantage? can you say that this is anything like what happened back in 1973? >> well, as you made clear it really isn't the same. it's very nixonian in style but not an exact parallel in situations. so there is something to draw on. in fact, the whole rollout has been so bungled, which is very contrary to richard nixon who had a very smooth running white house from day one. so there is a big difference there. but what is -- what is nixonian is the press release they issued at the time that they fired mrs.

yates. it was -- i have not seen such a nasty press release. they talk about her betraying the department of justice. they talk about her being weak on borders and weak on immigration. i mean it's a pretty nasty document. and you typically don't see that sort of thing come out of the white house. nixon might have thought those thoughts but he was always checked by his staff before they got out. >> in your experience. obviously it's been quite a while since nixon was the president. we have had ups and downs, up and downs in terms of rhetoric. this is certainly a new level of rhetoric a new low some might say, what we saw during the campaign, the transition and now what we are seeing during the presidency. that's what a lot of people would argue. what kubl are the risks here if we continue down this path where people are not only fired but they are fired by saying that they are betraying the president and that they are -- they need

to get in line? what is the logical conclusion to that. >> welling we have a similarity between nixon and trump in the fact they are both authoritarian personalities. nixon, really, but for the tapes and people who were the white house and understanding that permit, his authoritarianism wasn't well-known. it certainly became known after the tapes were released. trump has been right out front. he has not tried in any way to be anything other than who he is. so these are very authoritarian style presidencies. and we are watching what authoritarians do. they fire people. they don't want to have anybody disagree with them. they are narcissistic and they want to draw a lot of attention to themselves. nixon made a big deal out of the announcement of his supreme court justices, big shows in the east room, what have you. the parallels are pretty scary for me as somebody who has been there. >> who ultimately f those inside

the white house are not going to be doing this in his inner circle, who ultimately can influence donald trump or wield any -- i don't want to say power, but wield any influence, really, over how he comports himself, how he represents the office of the presidency, and how he goes about at least showing that he is respecting the democratic institutions that have been in place long before him and should be in place after he eventual leaves four or eight years from now. >> right, from my view from the inside it happens from a couple places. first of all the congress can have an influence. public opinion certainly has an influence. the family can have an influence. those i think are the three principle areas that you see a person who is a strong permit gets influenced by how he conducts himself as president. it's hard for the staff. nixon did, actually, though, solicit staff advice on how he was dealing with situations,

hired people to tell him how to look best and handle things best, can somebody tell him he should never wear a white shirt because it was too stark, the comparison with his shadow on his face. he said presidents don't wear blue shirts. we only wear white shirts. nixon did take advice but typically did his own thing, too. >> john dean i hope we can bring you back for our expertise a lot during these next four years. i am going to hold you to that, actually. thank you for being with us. >> do you think former acting attorney general sally yates was right to defy president trump's immigration order? let us know what you think. and we'll check your results later on in the show. next up, democrats deciding earlier to wage war with the republican president and republican-led congress trying to put the brakes on his nominees, senator patrick leahy joins me as we track trump's

first 100 days in office. my business was built with passion... but i keep it growing by making every dollar count. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on all of my purchasing. and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... which adds fuel to my bottom line. what's in your wallet?

parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply. that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long.

it is his job to lay that vision out and the people that he appoints and nominates and announces as staff members or cabinet level members or agency heads their job is to fulfill that. if they don't like it, they shouldn't take the job but it is the president we are fulfilling here. >> that was sean spicer minutes ago at the white house press briefing. trump's administration is taking heat for the firing of active attorney general sally yates. they used the dismissal to voice their concerns about senator jeff sessions and his ability to represent the people and not the president. >> sally yates, the acting attorney general, who enjoyed broad bipartisan support when she was confirmed as deputy attorney general declared that under her leadership the department could not defend

trump's executive order. that statement took guts. that statement said what an independent attorney general should do. >> his nominated me to be the chief law enforcement officer of the united states. not the chief law enforcement officer of the president. the chief law enforcement officer of the united states. i'm not convinced he meets the threshold standard. so i have to oppose this nomination. >> that was vermont democratic senator patrick leahy who joins me now from capitol hill. let's talk about that, senator, if you don't mind. what we just heard you say in that confirmation hearing. why are you not convinced that jeff sessions will be able to uphold the values and the rights and laws of the american people and not necessarily the president? >> well, i'm afraid that in so many of these things they want a double standard. you know, when sally yates was before the judiciary committee

for a confirmation, jeff sessions asked her under oath, under oath, are you willing to stand up to the president of the united states if you think the president of the united states is wrong, will you say so and act accordingly? she answered as every attorney general or deputy attorney general should, yes. of course when she did exactly what she swore she would do in upholding her oath, jeff sessions and those who work with him and mr. trump quickly had her fired. this is a double standard. he voted against my violence against women act which was supported by a majority of democrats and republicans. he said that he doesn't feel there is any real reason to have a section for americans in the

lgbt communities, there is no sign of discrimination against them. of course everybody knows there is. the fbi have even said that. he -- he even voted against a resolution i had. most people voted for it. but he voted against it when we said that there is not a religious test in the united states. well that's been that way since our first amendment was ratified. and yet he voted against that. >> so speaking of the immigration order -- i mean you are basically alluding or talking in generalities about what we ended up seeing. jeff sessions has said that he had nothing to do with the drafting of that executive order. but obviously he was somebody who worked very closely with donald trump on immigration during the campaign, he helped him form his immigration policy. steven miller was the former communications director for jeff sessions. he is now a white house adviser

and was reportedly behind this executive order. do you believe that he had nothing to do with the crafting of this? >> well, i think everybody, republican and democrat, in the senate would point out that jeff sessions was probably the most violently against -- vehemently against, i should say, against any immigration reform. the people with the closest connection with him in the trump organization helped draft this. the connection, if not immediate, was certainly there. >> so the strategyt of the democrats seems to be to stall, stall, stall. do you have any hope that you are going to be able to convince any of your republicans across the aisle this is not somebody that should be confirmed? if you can do it with session do you think you will have an argument with whom ever donald trump chooses as the next supreme court pick? >> i don't think it's stall, stall for the sake of stalling.

the republican leader made a huge mistake when he just piled all these nominations together having several hearings on the same day even though senators might be on different committees and could not attend them all. he did that even when some of the nominees hadn't finished their ethics reports, hadn't got all of their answers in. and i think that the democratic leader is saying, hey, let's go by regular order. let's slow it down. will it's have real debates and vote. now i will tell you this on jeff sessions, i don't know when i've ever had so many thousands of letters and e-mails even from my little state of vermont saying ask the questions. we demand to know the answers and whether they are confirmed or not, i think the american people should not see us just as rubber stamps. >> let's talk about scotus. donald trump is going to make

his supreme court announcement, his pick announcement tonight. we have it narrowed down to two people, neil gorsuch and thomas hardiman. obviously both conservative. do you see any issues with either one of those picks? >> well, i don't think it would be fair to start doing rejudging. we'll let the president name who it is. i was invited to be there, my wife and i had other plans. >> what are -- what would your questions be to those potential --? >> my questions would be are you really somebody who will uphold the law or do you want to make and change the law? y of them have hello things in their past where they have talked about laws that should be changed. one of them even as an apellate court judge wanted a supreme court to overturn apellate judge. that for everybody who says they dote want judicial activists

that sounds like a judicial activist. but it's going to be a long time before we get all of their backgrounds. and we should have full -- full hearings. >> senator, i want to ask you just -- >> but it looks too much like he is trying to fulfill some kind of a campaign pledge, i'll get rid of row versus wade. >> yes. >> i'll change things f. that's the case, then he is not naming somebody qualified to be on the supreme court. >> senator, quickly, senator hatch said it was basically called the democratic congressman stupid earlier today for holding a boycott. do you have a response? >> senator hatch personally blocked almost 70 of bill clinton's judges by boycotting and stopping any hearings. this goes way beyond a pot calling the kettle black. >> senator patrick leahy thank you very much for joining me from the judiciary committee and the democrat from vermont.

reports this hour of widespread divisions inside the west wing. who pulled the strings to make friday's executive order happen? who has the biggest influence on the president? what we know, next. runs on intel? that ride share? you actually rode here on the cloud. did not feel like a cloud... that driverless car? i have seen it all. intel's driving...the future! traffic lights, street lamps. business runs on the cloud... and the cloud runs on intel.

♪ i wonder what the other 2% runs on...(car horn) i'start at the new carfax.comar. show me minivans with no reported accidents.

boom. love it. [struggles] show me the carfax. start your used car search at the all-new carfax.com.

what is going on in the west wing? new reports the balance of power behind the scenes isn't so balanced. cracks and tensions among trump's inner circle after his sweeping order on immigration. a new "washington post" report says steve bannon and memberee stichb mill remember at odds with trump's chief of staff and his political allies. political reports staffers on the hill secretly advised the white house on the order without approval from their bosses or the gop leadership. house speaker paul ryan asked today about what he knew and when. >> we were briefed on it the contents of it as it was being rolled out. and then i had a very good

conversation with secretary kelly to make sure that we separate fact from myth that we make sure that the confusion gets cleared up very quickly. >> he who has the president's ear has the power. but for how long. >> joining me now one of the writers of that "washington post" article. phil rucker. talk to me about what is going on in the west wing. is there mounting anger on reince priebus's side about losing control and losing influence to president trump? >> you know, i think mounting anger is a bit overstated. but what is happening is you have a lot of people who are now running the government without experience running the government. they are trying to get a lot done very fast. it's sort of a slap dash pace here at the white house. we saw that over the weekend with this executive order. and they are not sort of checking all the boxes that you ordinarily would in a thorough process. congressional leaders on capitol hill were telling us yesterday that they were not aware until the media reports that this was even happening. they felt totally cut out of the

loop. we were hearing that some of the cabinet connects were grumbling to their associates over the weekend they too were cut out of the loop. inside the white house you have a lot of people with power, their own power, their own access to the president who are competing in these sort of power spheres that the president has set up. we know it is a how he managed his businesses, it's how he managed his campaign which felt chaotic sometimes and turned out to be successful. that's what we have here at the white house. >> is there worry behind the scenes that is not going to work in this scenario? after all this is not one of donald trump's businesses, this is not a campaign, this is the white house. >> it's more complicated than a campaign when you are governing. there is some concern that any sign of mismanaged or feeling outside that there has been mismanagement or chaos or confusion would undermine the policies themselves. a lot of people who agree with these policies who are in trump's orbit feel that the storyline coming out of this weekend has been negative and really hurts the overall policy efforts.

we will see how they clean this up. they are only 10 or 12 days in now. but clearly they have got to work things out and get through the growing pains. >> this is not your paper but david brooks today wrote that basically the gop has struck a deal with the devil, and they are going to pay too high a price for it. i know in your past life you covered the gop more broadly, and congress. >> yeah. >> in your estimation, at what point is the gop ghog to say you know what, we need there to be -- we need there to be a little bit more consistency, more predictability, we need to be looped in on things before this executive orders like this or new policies get rolled out. >> i think that's exactly right. that's what congress wanlts. they want to be in the loop. they want to be consulted. they want to have their say. frankly in some cases they have a legal say. advice and concept on capitol hill. the republicans control congress but remember trump is not part

of the republican party necessarily. he is sort of his own independent actor in washington trying to shake up the whole town, including his own party. so we are always going to have these conflicts and tensions. i think the supreme court pick tonight though could try to soothe things temporarily at least because i assume we are going to have a lot of republican support for the nominee. >> quickly, where is jared kushner or the vice president? >> well, the vice president has a lot of influence all around, especially with the hill. he was up on the hill today meeting with lawmakers. he has had a lot of personal conversations with the lawmakers trying to bring them along trying to explain what trump is doing to the hill. and jared kushner you know may be one of the most influential advisors here in white house. he has his father-in-law's ear and is taking sides sperl on foreign toll policy. >> phil rucker on the north lawn at the white house. joining me, greta vansustren.

nice to see you. >> nice to see you. >> tell me, does donald trump thrive off the indicate yosz? >> he better because he sure has a lot of it around him since he got started. note this, he told us, he told the entire nation he was going to do all these things and guess what, he did them. >> he did tell the entire nation. i think the republicans were thinking that before he signed an executive order that he would go to them saying how can we do this legally, can we make sure the language is correct, make sure there is clarity here so it is a not rolled out in such a confusing way. >> well, i think his manners may not be his long suit but he is just doing executive orders which he has the authority to do. this is in the long run probably going to hurt him because the lawmakers will get mad sooner or later because they are not being consulted and they are the legislative branch of the government. you can't govern the country by the stroke of a pen you have got to have leg routed out capitol hill. sooner or later this will haunt him. >> what do you think is going to be last straw? >> money. he keeps saying we are going to

build this wall but someone has got to pay for it. extreme vetting. somebody has to pay for it. all these things cost money. we are going to cut regulations. anything he wants to do is probably going to cost money. that's when he is going to have a problem. a lot of republicans don't want to spend more money. they don't want to borrow any more. he wants to cut the taxes, trump, so that means less money in the treasury. >> we have seen the roll outs galvanized the left. not all democrats but a portion of the left. >> he is a better fund-raiser than the clinton campaign. he does something and money comes in on the transome. >> that's not to be argued. democrats from the coast have come out, schumer and people from california have come out strongly against this. where are the democrats from the middle of the country? >> i don't know where the democrats are in the middle of the country. the bigger question is where were these democrats before the election? they act scandalized by this

stuff. but the democrats were not particularly mobilized. i realize that secretary got the grower number of votes but didn't get the electoral college states' votes. now everyone is up in arms because donald trump is doing what he saidr he was going to do. >> to be fair the republicans were scandalized by trump as well until they realized he wasn't going anywhere. >> they were, but now they are wrapping their arms around him. a lot who didn't in the beginning. >> we are expecting donald trump to sign another executive order any minute now. we have gotten the one minute moderning from the white house. this is going on the an executive order on sidebarer security. this is theet mooing before signing the executive order to discuss cyber security. greta talk to me about -- this is another thing he campaigned on, we need to toughen our cyber security measures. what has fallen off the radar in the past few weeks -- here we have it before i could even and you the question. this is donald trump right now having meeting with cyber security experts at the white house. let's listen in for a moment. >> today i'm convening this

meeting to follow through on my promise to secure crucial infrastructure and the networks that we've been talking so much about over the last period of time of the federal government against cyber threats. i will hold my cabinet secretaries and agency heads accountable, totally accountable for the cyber security of their organization, which we probably don't have as much, certainly not as much as we should have. we must defend and protect federal networks and data. we operate these networks on behalf of the american people, and they are very important and very sacred. we will empower these agencies to modernize their i.t. systems for better security and other reasons. we will protect our critical infrastructure such as power plants and electrical grids.

the electrical grid problem is is a problem but we'll have it solved relatively soon. we must work with private sector. the private sector way ahead of government in this case to ensure that owners and operators of critical infrastructure have the support they need from the federal government to defend against cyber threats. now, i think a pretty good example of this was despite having spent hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars more money unanimous we did, the democratic national committee was hacked successfully, very successfully. and terribly, frankly. and the republican national committee was not hacked. meaning it was hacked but they failed. it was reported, i believe, by reince and other people that it was hacked. but we had a very strong defense system against hacking. so despite spending a lot less

money than the democrats, and in all fairness winning -- people don't say that -- we spent a lot less money and we won. that's good, right, suspect that a good thing when you can spend less and win. but we were also very successful in our defense against hacking. we are going to make sure that cyber security is central to both our military and the ships, planes, and tanks built by great americans for our great american military and our military become stronger a stronger and stronger as we go along. i just met with general mattis and he's doing a great job. we are really happy with him and everybody. you probably saw general kelly. he was spectacular today on his press conference, and we appreciate everything he said. with that, i want to introduce rudy giuliani. and he is going to be working with jared kushner and with tom bossic who are also here.

and rudy is very much of an expert on cyber security. it's been a very important thing to him and to what he does. maybe i'll ask rudy to say a few words. >> well thank you very much, mr. president. first of all congratulations on what is in fact a historic start of an administration. i have never seen so much done in so short a period of time than ever. i was in the early part of the reagan administration. just used to sit in this room every tuesday. i remember how fast they got off to a start. you are about three times ahead of them. i don't remember the roosevelt thousand days but i think you may be ahi head of him. and you are doing it without a cabinet, with three or four members. >> it would help if the documents approved the cabinet. >> congratulations. what you have been doing is keeping your promises and this is one of your promises. one of your promises was to shore up your country because one of the dangers we face, national security and crime, is

cyber security. and large part of our country, unlike other countries is made up of the private sector. and the private sector is wide open to hacking, and sometimes by hacking the private sector you can get into government. so we can't do this separately. and you were wise enough to decide that we should have a council where we can bring in the private sector, they can explain to you the problems they have, they can explain to the administration the solutions they have, which in some cases may be better than the government, in some cases they may not be as good as the government. plus we can search around the world, including in countries like -- places where they are doing a lot of advanced cyber security analysis. we can look for long term, you know, long term solutions. here you are addressing not only a national security problem but you are addressing the fastest growing form of crime in america, which is cyber theft.

it's growing faster than any other crime. and finally, by speaking out on this and holding regular meet g meetings on it you are using the bully pulpit of the presidency to get the private sector to wake up. some of the private sector has awakened to the fact that they have to do more about cyber security but part of it hasn't. as president you are in unique position to get the private sector to realize that they have to pitch in and help the government. i'll work very closely with jared and with tom and sebastian gawker and all the people that you have that are working on this, and we'll take our priorities from you. if what you first want to do is look at the grid, we'll bring in all the private grid companies and solution companies. if you want to look at financial institutions we'll do financial institutions. if you want to look at hospitals

we'll bring in hospitals. but we'll let you set the priorities so we can have a very, very close working relationship. congratulations on fulfilling another one of your campaign promises. >> thank you very much rudy. i appreciate it. i know you are going to do a great job. you formed the committee and we are going to go into greatel detail and have it up and running. we will be doing something very special. i wanted to thank senator dan coates for being here. thank you for being here senator. do you have anything to say about cyber? >> clearly it has risen to a top priority because of the impact it can have. my job f confirmed -- i'm not confirmed yet i have a feeling you will make it. >> i hope so. my job is to make sure the intelligence communities every bit of intelligence that they can so that the policies that can be affected are the right policies to deal with this. i think this is an enormous challenge but one that is a significant threat to our country and something that needs to be -- we have to get after this right away. >> i want to thank you for your

service and thank you for everything you have done, even over the last week. your knowledge is amazing and everybody has great respect. so thank you very much. he thought he was going toly after many years in the senate and have a nice peaceful then. then i called him, dan, how about going a little bit longer, we appreciate it thank you very much. and admiral thank you for being here. do you have anything to say about cyber. >> i believe the key here is partnerships between the private sector and the government. we have the ability to work with both. naes the sweet spot. >> john kelly just gave a very long news conference and a very, very good one and effective one. while he's warmed up, do you have anything to say at this time. >> might as well go another one or two minutes. >> i have a otd of things to say about cyber. but i'll learn at the feet of the wisemen. >> a lot to do with the border

and really a lot to do with what you are doing. it's going to be very important. thank you all very much. we are going off a meeting and we are going to get it going. thank you. >> how are you going to get them through? >> general, keith alexander. >> one second. >> keith alexander is probably the person who knows the most about cyber security than anyone that i know. >> i have heard that. >> i hope he will play a big role in this. >> i look forward to supporting you mr. president. >> this man is a tremendous resource. >> thank you. thank you, general, that's very nice. we will see you in a little while. we will be announcing a supreme court justice who i think everybody is going to be very, very impressed with. we will see you about 8:00. >> the democrats guide didn't get through, mr. president. they say it got stolen. donald trump having a cyber security meeting. also teasing ahead to his scotus pick tonight at 8:00 p.m.

a wise man on my right, hans nickels pointed out that on donald trump's right was jared kushner and not general mike flynn. we can talk about that in a moment. first i want to go to greta vansustren. you noted that it's going to cost money. >> look, everything costs money. that's -- these are his promises that he is going to did all these things. look, i want to modernize the i.t. systems, i want our grid to be secure. i want everything to do with o infrastrture to be secure but it costs money. has to go to congress for that. congress, at least the freedom caucus doesn't like to spend money. >> donald trump talks about being tough on cyber security. there is still the cloud of the russian hacking hanging over his head. it's something he hasn't really referred to very much and when he does refer to it he blames the democrats for being too vulnerable for it and then says that he still won the election by spending less money.

how much -- my question is, if he is not not talking about the russian hacking how much does that concern folks within the intelligence community? >> depends how he doesn't talk about it right? we just heard him there saying that the republicans defenses were better. right? that's not really what the fbi report said, right? yes, they did get hacked and the democrats did get hacked and there was anna leak. but it really goes to the intent of the ubs russians. to greta's point on costing money you look at what was left over from the defense authorization bill they did in december. there is a whole kitty some republicans want to spend to the tune of like $18 billion. >> and it adds up. it adds you will. all these things adds up. >> at what point is that kitty going to run empty? >> well, it depends on how serious the freedom caucus is and the house of representatives on holding the line on spending or whether or not they want to have a blank check for defense. i mean we are past the sequestration fights here right. if they come back to congress

and congress is willing to spend a lot more money on defense they are vehicles that they can load this up on. >> except you have to consider the fact that one of his other campaign promises and so far he has been committed to the campaign ams promises is he is also committed to reducing the taxes. that's less revenue into the kitty. so if we can do all this stuff, terrific. but if you are keeping your money -- if you are starting to add it up, kaching, this stuff does have costs. >> so does building a wall. >> that is 8 to $14 billion. >> yeah. >> we have to do these things but i think americans aren't worried about the hacking of the russians. i think they are worried about the power grid going down or bank statements and pensions. >> or being locked in a hotel in austria, did you read in a story. cyber hackers locked peep in a hotel in austria and demanded a ransom. >> hold that thought. let's bring in a former deputy assistant secretary of state who is now the president of the

washington strategy group. joel, thanks for sticking with us. i know we were going to talk to you a little bit more about donald trump's immigration executive order and how that's being received overseas. but first off, do you have any thoughts from that obviously very brief meeting were just were able to watch in on about donald trump talking about how to beef up cyber security? >> thanks katey. i appreciate you having me here for this discussion as well. because if we remember at the end of the obama administration the homeland security secretary label our elections infrastructure as critical infrastructure. not surprising we didn't hear that mentioned today. that is going to come up. the sanction at this time of our democracy needs to be protected and that needs to be addressed aggressively. we will see how that plays out. so i'm concerned about how the private sector is going the engage with the trump administration. they have to have confidence. this was always a tension point with the obama administration,

how well would the cyber infrastructure owned by the private sector, i think it's nearly 90% of our infrastructure, how would they engage with the federal government? they need to have confidence in president trump and his administration to really partner with them in cyber security. >> let's talk about that. i think joel is referring to privacy concerns. >> yeah. >> how does the federal government make sure that privacy is maintained within private security firms and if there are concerns about what's going on in this government. obviously there is -- he won the election but the popular vote is still a thing. it is a very divisive culture. what is going to be the big issue going forward? >> they provide guidance. that's what the federal government does. try to provide guidance and actually in some cases bits of code for corporations, private corporations to look for. this is what we saw at the ends of the obama administration. this was in that big report. one of the things they had was instructions to private sethors how to make their systems safe. you don't have a lot of people

in the cyber world thinking their systems are secure. back doors could be wide open. >> what are you hearing from your diplomatic friends overseas about how this is going ceived are there any concerns or do they think this was a wise move by the president? >> well, there's a dissent memo circulating right now. it's been reported on as well. that is a legitimate channel for expressing diskent sent which is a quintessential american value. my sources and what i'm hearing is that there are nearly 1,000 diplomats that have sign onto this memo. it really is a comprehensive critique about the visa and the muslim ban frankly and the critique how it will harm american security and our economy and stands contrary to our values. this creates a bit of a crisis moment because we are going to rely on dhs to put out regulations and orders related to cyber security as well as what we are discussing related to visas. there needs to be confidence

that the interagency process, the legal mechanisms, the coordination and the realout that they are legitimate and real. right now the diplomatic community which does protect us is very much concerned about the direction of this policy. >> continuing on the round robin of topics greta i want your opinion on this. madeleine albright was critical of this administration for their ability to take dissent. she said hearing dissent is one of the foundations of our democracy. are you getting a sense from conversations in the white house and conversations on the hill that this is going to be as john dean called it more of an authoritarian style presidency, more in front of the scenes certainly than nixon was behind the scenes? >> certainly in the early days it looks that way because of the executive orders. all presidents during their first hundred days do a lot of executive orders. it looks that way. the question is what's going to happen going forward? will this president be able to work with republicans and democrats. i had a union leader in my office. >> does it seem like he is going to be able to do so? >> i had a union leader in my

office who said to me i was in the oval office the other day with donald trump. i said were you ever in the oval office with president obama? he said no. look, it's very early. he sign a lot of executive orders doing what he said he did. we will have to wait to see what he is going to do. but the fact he is reaching across the i will to talk to union leaders at least this union leader said president obama didn't and the fact he is talking to other people, maybe that's a good sign. it's way too soon. >> it is only -- gosh, a week, a week and a half in. feels like a year. >> your lips to god's ears. greta vansustren. hans knicks ols, joel rubin, thank you for joining me and taking my firing squad of questions. one last check of today's microsoft pills question. do you think former acting attorney general sally yates was right to defy president trump's immigration order? so far, 94% of you say yes. 6% of you say no. remember, you have got more time to weigh in. we'll be right back. per roll

more "doing chores for dad" per roll more "earning something you love" per roll bounty is more absorbent, so the roll can last 50% longer than the leading ordinary brand. so you get more "life" per roll. bounty, the quicker picker upper parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply. that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide.

it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long. i own my own company. i had some severe fatigue, some funny rashes. finally, listening to my wife, went to a doctor. and i became diagnosed with hodgkin's lymphoma ...that diagnosis was tough. i had to put my trust in somebody. when i first met steve, we recommended chemotherapy, and then we did high dose therapy and then autologous stem cell transplant. unfortunately, he went on to have progressive disease i thought that he would be a good candidate for immune therapy. it's an intravenous medicine that is going

to make his immune system evade the tumor. with chemotherapy, i felt rough, fatigue, nauseous. and with immune therapy we've had such a positive result. i'm back to working hard. i've honestly never felt this great. i believe the future of immunotherapy at ctca is very bright. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com appointments available now.

>> that wraps things up for me this hour. thank you for joining me. i'm katie tur -- i almost got through the whole show. take. away. >> katey and kate. good afternoon. i'm kate snow. here are our top stories right now. in a matter of minutes president trump expected to sign yet another executive order. this one we are told is about cyber security. we will bring you the sign examining the specifics in a moment. a few hours from now the big announcement in primetime. president trump makes a show of revealing his choice for the supreme court. and on capitol hill this hour, democrats digging in their heels, procedural tactics, delaying cabinet votes, even a full on boycott for two high level positions. but will any of it actually stop the confirmations to president trump's cabinet? let's start out at white house this afternoon. it's becoming a habit. halle jackson was