that will do it for this hour. "mtp daily" starts right now. if it's friday, it's time for four questions. and we've got four big ones. tonight, the end game. what trump's first major sbael test tells us about u.s. policy in syria going forward. >> the strike was well planned, well executed. certainly more than a be pin prick. >> we have the strike on syria covered from all the angles. >> plus the north korea threat. and shaking out the shake-up talk. are we about to see yet another shake-up in less than 100 days in the trump white house?

this is mtp daily and it starts right now. good evening. i'm chuck todd in washington and welcome to friday's "mtp daily." everyone is trying to decode president trump's action in syria. what do last night's strikes mean? are we looking at mission creep or mission accomplished? what is his goal? end of blood shed? remove assad? rattle some sabres? what is mr. trump's men to the world. was this a warning to russia? a warning to north korea's ally china? it happened with president xi actually staying at mar-a-lago. and what is the message to president trump's base at home? how does he sell it? how does he navigate the political cross currents? that one question, the one closest to home, may be the most difficult to answer. it comes as our ambassador to

the united nations nikki haley says the u.s. is prepared for escalation. and warning about assad may have retained a stockpile of nerve agents or rekonconstituted the ability to make one. here at home the political landscape has been scrambled. forget everything you thought you knew about the political lines in the country. after last night's strikes, none of them make any sense. first, president trump is acting like hillary clinton. it almost appeared last night that he was following her advice. >> i really believe that we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use they will to bomb innocent people a drop sin gas on they will of. >> tonight i ordered a targeted military strike on the air field in syria from where the chemical attack was launched.

>> but it's not just trump and clinton. the top republican in the house paul ryan is in agreement the top democrat in the house, chuck schumer. they both supported it. they believe it was not legal. >> it was illegal for president obama to bomb libya. it is also illegal for president trump to bomb syria. >> doing this without a vote is a clear violation of law. >> there are some hard right republicans like thomas massey who think it was a big mistake. he might find some allies among progressive democrats. the congresswoman is warning of nuclear war. then there are die hard trump supporters who have turned into die hard trump opponents. they were told during the campaign that syria was not our fight. >> the people that we're backing, a lot of people think they're isis. that we're backing isis.

what are we doing? we have to get rid of isis first. assad we can think about later on. >> hillary and our failed washington establishment have spent $6 trillion on wars in the middle east that we never won and never end. now she wants to start a shooting war in syria in could not fwlikt a nuclear armed russia that could very well lead to world war they. >> that was days before the election. that was only less than six months ago. folks, we are in uncharted territory some of the are clamoring for escalation. others are demanding we stay away. what will the president do? will congress or the public let him do it? let's get to the field. richard, you're in turkey, just miles from the border. wa we have a satellite delay. we've heard rhetorical responses from assad and the russians.

is there going to be more than a rhetorical response to what the united states d last night? >>eporter: at this stage, it does not seem like there will be. u.s. military officials say on the ground, they're not seeing any signs of an escalation. no signs of a military response. we've heard from both russia and the assad regime. they've obviously both condemned what happened in syria. that is not surprising. but their responses have been fairly muted. the assad regime calling this strike irresponsible, foolish, politically motivated. none of those particularly sharp comments no, direct threats there. and moscow calling it illegal, saying it was an attack on a sovereign nation. and that when the u.s. goes it alone, particularly in the middle east, bad consequences have happened. theon actions we've seen from the russians are talk of increasing air defenses in syria

which is the russians' way of saying, don't try to do this again. we'll make it more difficult to do this again. but and also, suspending a hotline that has been used to deconflict russian and u.s. aircraft over syria. but at this stage, unless things change, it seems like the trump administration got away with this one without having a major escalation of the conflict. >> and very quickly, richard, was this effective militarily? >> caller: effective militarily to send a message. to send a message to assad and potentially to send a message to china, north korea, a message about u.s. credibility. that president trump won't hesitate to use the military, won't hesitate to use the military when he fees it is necessary and won't have to go around the world seeking consensus. but not effective to significantly weaken the assad

regime, change the balance of power. but it doesn't seem like that was the goal. >> all right. richard engel in turkey for us. now let's to go moscow where we have our global correspondent bill neely on the ground. what have you got? >> reporter: good evening. there is no expense russia wants to take this beyond statements of condemnation. beyond angry words at the united nations. and certainly no sense that russia wants to retaliate militarily. yes, there is a russian warship heading from the black sea to the eastern mediterranean. but u.s. officials at the pentagon already saying that that warship has operated near u.s. shipments in the past. they certainly don't see it as any kind of threat. i think it is significant, for example, that president putin, while making a statement today, hasn't appeared on camera. there is a expense this dispute is being contained.

sergei lavrov, the russian foreign minister is saying there's no reason for this to do irreparable harm. and next week, the secretary of state rex tillerson will be here and he will sit down with sergei lavrov. behind this are the hopes, certainly here, that there can be a new relationship between the u.s. and russia. you may say that these air strikes put that back a notch or two. but that's not really the sense here. there's a worry that president trump in the words of dmitri medvedev is being sucked back into the swamp of the washington establishment, as he put it today. but i think there is still hope that there can be some meeting of minds. so i think, yes. limited air strikes today. limited condemnation from russia and a dispute, i think, that is being contained. >> bill neely in moscow for us. thank you.

now let me to go chris jansing. on the beat at mar-a-lago with the president. he is there with the chinese president. today, chris, they were ready with an answer. was this the start of a campaign or a message to be sent and we'll deal with what the policy is going forward in the future? >> reporter: a little bit of could not, conflicting response. nikki haley said we're prepared to do more. on the other hand you have rex tillerson saying don't extrapolate anything. this isn't a change in policy and this is a please didn't want to get involved in messy affairs overseas. steve mnuchin saying the treasury department is prepared for sanctions. they'll be serious, targeted, meant to send a message to

syria. we heard from rex tillerson who called what happened last night a great successful to that pointed question of whether or not this was a one off, he said it will be decide by how we see their reaction. now, of course, this is very complicated. you can say this is easy part, the hard part. russian troops mixing. the next phase is really difficult which they have not clearly answered. nor clearly articulated and gained here. >> okay. chris jansing in palm beach for us. thank you. i'll joined by robert ford, the last u.s. ambassador to serve in syria. he served in the obama administration. ambassador, thank you, sir. so let me start with this question. the strike last night. is that an effective dermadeterrent on assad from

using kechemical weapons? >> 59 missiles is a lot of missiles and i think they did some serious damage to that one air base. but the syrian air force is not destroyed. my guess is that bashar al assad will stand down for a time. he will stop using chemical weapons for a time. and after the passage of time, two months, three months, he will start testing the american he resolvegain with small scale chemical weapons deployment, not as big as we saw on tuesday but just testing the american reaction. >> that would be, that's exactly what he did. i feel like if 2013. little test, little test, you saw rhetorical escalation from president obama. then he got to the red line comment. then we got to the point where it looked like there would be strikes and then he backed off.

what would your recommendation be now if president trump called you up, general mcmaster called you up, the national security adviser said, ambassador, this is your turf. you know it well. what is the next best step? what would be your recommendation? >> i think a very limited strike solely intended to reestablish deterrence against chemical weapons use, that's smart. it only works if you maintain the deterrent. so if he begins testing again, twoe stand ready to do another strike. i'm moping secretary tillerson when he goes to moscow, will have a somewhat stronger hand now. that the russians will deliver the message from tillerson, if assad stands down, the trump administration will stand down. but that chemical weapons are the red line. >> it is interesting you say stand down. do you get message from the united states could be, look, we won't get involved in the civil

war. but any time they commit a foul, we might get involved. is that the message you think tillerson should send or will be sending? >> i think that's the message he should send and i think it is the message he will send. i makes no sense to intervene heavily in the syrian civil war if we don't have a very detailed plan for both the politics as ll as the reconstruction of the couny. we decapitated a government in flack 2003, 2004. that didn't work very well of so let's not make that mistake again. if they really want to get involved in the syrian civil war, they'll have to marshal a lot of resources and i have no sentence trump administration wants to go down that path. >> you hear from some hawks, both democrats and republicans on the hawkish side of things, who believe there should be more arming of those that are rising

assad. if you can make sure arming isis anymore. is that still a feasible strategy or is that too hard to make happen? >> i think the window for that to work effectively passed when russia intervened in a big way in 2015. they really changed the balance of power. the opposition remains very divided. it is a problem. i don't have an easy prescription for the way out of syria. and i think anyone who says one thing or two things will fix it doesn't know what they're talking about of. >> all right. ambassador ford, i know you have to get going. i'll let you go. but there's a reason president obama used to be quoted as saying, all the syrian options are a lot of -- and he would have a four letter word befe the word options of the i think we know why. joing me now, joni ernst, a middle east come bat veteran

herself. welcome back to the show. >> great to be back. thank you. >> i know you're battling a cold wind there. you support the actions taken. why and do you want to see more action? >> well, the second question first. i don't want to see more action unless it is warranted. this was a one-on-one response. a strike, a very strategic surgical strike against assets that were used in the chemical weapons attack against syrian civilians. so do i agree with the actions. i do agree with them because we have seen those human atrocities that are out there. we have seen the use of chemical weapons which we believe is against international law. and we also think that there's a threat. if chemical weapons exist in syria, knowing how isis is

spreading throughout that country, it could fall into not the just the syrian regime's hands but into terrorists' hands including isis and be used against not only our allies but against perhap american civilians of. >> you were very clear that you supported the specific operation and it sounds like anything more, you believe the president has to come to congress. why is this legal in the first place? i've been reading, you read the warner powers act very closely. it is not clear that the strike was legal as far as congress is concerned. >> well, i do believe it was under article 2 of the constitution. giving the powers to the commander-in-chief to strike overseas when he sees the need on defend against national security. and as i've weighed out, there are atrocities happening oversea that's co. fact united states

national security. however, going forward i do believe that we need notification coming to congress. if he wishes to do anything further, he does need to bring that specific plan with his reasoning to congress before we move forward. >> let me ask you this. do you want him to do more? >> at this time, i think his action was appropriate. we are still engaging in a fight against isis. i think that is the focus we need to have right now as the united states. should anything further happen, if we continue to see the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. have the very, very hard discussions. for right now, i think the one-on-one action by the president was appropriate. >> you had said that one of the reasonings you believe makes this legal, the threat of chemical weapons could get in the hands of isis.

is that the compelling reason to go forward here? that the russians either didn't get all the chemical weapons or assad is still making they will, he's violating the treaty. is this a compelling reason to switch the focus to assad, if the concern is chemical weapons will get into the hands of isis? >> well, i think the compelling reason there is to go to the u.n. security council and make sure that they are injecting themselves into this situation. we have ambassador haley very hard on this. i think it is up to that spael community. not just unilateral action by the united states. i think the u.n. security council needs to look at this and say they are going to go in, start inspections, and make sure that those chemical weapons if more exist, that they are disposed of properly and out of assad's hands. >> you'll be going home here to

your constituents. you'll have some who say i voted for you. i voted for president trump. but i heard him say we can't get overly involved in the middle east. what do you say to that constituent that says, tinlds moral reason to do it but are we getting involved in something we shouldn't get involved in? >> what i would say to that constituent is that the president has done a one-on-one strike against this specific target and response to a specific action. we have not engaged in military actions as far as sending in troops to oppose the regime. that's not happening. what we're seeing is a direct attack in response to an atrocious act by bashar al assad. so i would reassure them, if the president does wish to engage, we would encourage him to come to the united states congress and have those very difficult

decisions. >> senator joni ernst, thank you. coming up, later, another day, another round of stories about divisions inside the west wing. stay with me, mr. parker. when a critical patient is far from the hospital, the hospital must come to the patient. stay with me, mr. parker. the at&t network is helping first responders connect with medical teams in near real time... stay with me, mr. parker. ...saving time when it matters most. stay with me, mrs. parker. that's the power of and. customer service!d. ma'am. this isn't a computer... wait. you're real? with discover card, you can talk to a real person in the u.s., like meanytime. wow. this is a recording. really? no, i'm kidding. 100% u.s.-based customer service. here to help, not to sell.

if it's sunday of course, it is "meet the press." when you think about it, we'll have all angles of this debate covered. hawks, doves and those in the middle. (phone ringing) they'll call back. no one knows your ford better than ford and ford service. right now, during the big tire event, get a $140 rebate by mail, on four select tires.

♪ welcome back. lots of political and legal questions surrounding president trump's decision to launch air strikes on a syrian air field last night.

amy, i want to start with the legal question first. i think it is not cut and dry here at all. i think the administration could make better legal arguments by not making them. how much of an issue could this be? >> it was certainly an issue even in the obama years. and wasn't the president himself who was using it as one of the legal reasons to bring a vote in 2013 for authorized use of military forceful i think it keeps coming back to congress's role in this. they need to play a role in this. they've done a brilliant job of dethis on to the president and on to other folks not taking their responsibility themselves for making what is going to be a very, very difficult vote. >> what is interesting here. the leadership in congress,

democrats and republicans didn't want to vote on this. they didn't want to vote on libya or syria. but there are plenty in the rank and file who do. if you don't assert congressional authority now, you've essentially expanded the president's powers by doing nothing. do you buy that argument? >> maybe. this is something, going back to the white house for a second. the white house is using this argument that the same authorization that authorized president obama to go after gadhafi and libya in 2011 is the same justification for now. and that is kind of interesting, right? it has this interesting dynamic with his republican conference in congress. a large chunk of them opposed to that operation. so kind of curious to see where republicans in the middle of that debate you've just described, where do they go? do they support president trump if he continues to go down this way? or do they stick to some kind of

principle? >> what more does the trump administration want to do and argue for doing? >> now you've set a red line. what's the new red line? is it conventional weapons? we have a humanitarian crisis in syria unlike anythinge' seen in the past half century. is it just when kechemical attacks? you saw him a little bit nrgs defense of the national interests. that's a pretty thin reed to be walking out on but it might work. >> there was a great piece in the "washington post." he said there are americans in grenade a. and president trump in -- there aren't americans in syria that you're protecting. this loose national interest. if that's the case, then him having any chemical weapons. >> isn't that what the president said last night?

the justification. the chemical weapons. >> bits not the just using they will. having them. because of fear of them getting to isis. >> there is a geopolitical element as well. i know from my reporting with the white house that the, after the attack, even on back channels, russia officials were still saying, look, maybe this wasn't really assad. maybe this had 22nd the al nusra front. so there's a bit of geo politics at play here which you could say is in the national interests. the united states can't be made foos by another major world power. which is backing assad and ria. >> what about for the president? this wasn't just an aside when he said he wasn't interested in military interventions in the middle east. he was willing to take criticism to say, yeah, the middle east was more stable when gadhafi was around and assad was stronger. >> it is a complete die metric

shift from where he was 72 hours ago. what was the trigger? was it simfully photographs of those children which are morally outrageous, but is that all it took to take all the political fallout, all the scrambling we talk about earlier. will he act impulsively in the future on these issues? it is a fascinating insight to watch how quickly he can move. he spent no time trying get an international consensus or coalition. >> he also campaigned as being the unpredictable candidate. and he is not going to warn our enemies about what we're doing at any point in time. so that would actually fit right in. and this is about being muscular, being strong, showing the world. right? this is a president who wants to build up the military. but we won't use it except as a deterrent. here's another the opportunity to show, when you mess with, in this case, not us but you mess with world standards, moral

standards, we'll stand up for this one time. we can't say that there is a change in america first policy if there's no back-up to this. if it is literally a one off. we don't have another military answer. >> i guess the question is, does he raise expectations? president obama raised expectations with the resistance. he had a coalition ready to go. and then is this going to raise expectations? >> no. i think the administration is trying to lower expectations. we heard this from rex tillerson saying, there doesn't reflect, and don't extrapolate a change in policy. i think obama campaigned against syria, it does effectively change osyrian policy. there's a lot of debate in the administration among broadly republican foreign policy types about what do you do? it is not so simple as just

getting rid of assad. there are so many different groups in that region in syria with different motivations. and it is a much messier situation than two, three, four years ago. >> there is no good option. there is a reason why there's been paralysis. you guys are sticking around. still ahead, was this syrian strike a message to china as much as to russia and syria? stay tuned. the customer app will be live monday. can we at least analyze customer traffic? can we push the offer online? brian, i just had a quick question. brian? brian... legacy technology can handcuff any company. but "yes" is here. you're saying the new app will go live monday?! yeah. with help from hpe, we can finally work the way we want to. with the right mix of hybrid it, everything computes. and you'reboutto hitsend all' this cube farm on some embarrassing gas.

hey, you bought gas-x®! unlike antacids, gas-x ® relieves pressure and bloating fast. huh, crisis averted.

hi, i'm frank. i take movantik for oic, opioid-induced constipation. had a bad back injury, my doctor prescribed opioids which helped with the chronicpa, but backed me up big-time. tried prunes, laxatives, still constipated... had to talk to my doctor. she said, "how long you been holding this in?" (laughs) that was my movantik moment. my doctor told me that movantik is specifically designed for oic and can help you go more often. don't take movantik if you have a bowel blockage or a history of them. movantik may cause serious side effects, including symptoms of opioid withdrawal, severe stomach pain and/or diarrhea, and tears in the stomach or intestine. tell your doctor about any side effects and about medicines you take. movantik may interact with them causing side effects.

why hold it in? have your movantik moment. talk to your doctor about opioid-induced constipation. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

decoding the message president trump sent to the world attacking syria. first, it was jobs friday. not the greatest report. >> thanks, chuck. despite that though, stocks stayed steady. the dow down by 6 points. the s&p and the nasdaq both off by 1 points. job gains slowed down with employers adding 98,000 jobs. the good news, unemployment foal a ten-year low of 4.5%. meanwhile, the company will start selling its ranger pickup truck in china next year. that's it from cnbc. first in business worldwide.

welcome back to mtpdale. one of the big questions in the aftermath is what message does president trump hope to send to the rest of the world?

he ordered the strike while he was hosting president xi? how much was this message to china about america's willingness to act unilaterally when necessary about, say, a company like north korea? joining me, ambassador hill to iraq and south korea. he knows the region very well. gals always good to see you. so you're president xi, you're there at mar-a-lago, you're there for the opening dinner and within three hours the president of the united states announces a strike against syria. what message do you think president xi took away from that decision last night? >> you know, i think the chinese are pretty good at analyzing these things. i think they have a good sense of it and i think they understood what it means to use chemical weapons and why the united states felt it needed to react, especially given the previous administration reacted so differently. so i think they will

compartmentalize that in syria. on the other hand, i think it says something to them about the person they're dealing with. that is, president trump and his willingness, in this case for the first time torsion use force. so i think they're now aware, i should say, better aware of how the president might react to issues. and i think overall, if the president wants to, quote, go it alone on north korea, and i haven't heard too many people say that's a good idea, i think the chinese would want to take notice. >> i am curious. it felt like as the week gab, when dmouk another missile test. i have to thinks about the last thing president xi wanted in the days, in the run-up to a summit with the american psideho wants to put north korea essentially at the top of that bilateral agenda. how much extra leverage does president trump have in this summit on north korea right now? >> there's no question. the chinese are fed up.

they're sick of this north korean regime. they've never even invited kim jong-un to beijing and i don't think an invitation is coming. i think they're at rope's end. i think it does help president trump to say we have to do something about this guy. clearly he is out of control. so the chinese might say, well, as you can see, we can't seem to control him. and i think the real locus of conversation should be, okay, what can we both do? can't do you more in the sanctions? and the china lease probably acknowledge they can. the trouble with the sanctions is that nuclear weapons are being developed faster than sanctions could be felt. >> so our own investigative team has a story just out in the last hour. and it is, our reporting indicates according to some intelligence officials that president trump is going to be presented with two options to respond to north korea. among them include, placing

american nuclear weapons back in south korea. it is something was there, we removed them 25 years ago. that appears to be among the recommendations he's getting. what do you make of that idea? would it serve as a deterrent to snouk. >> first, i don't think it is a deterrent to north korea. i think had north korea understands, if we want to go after them with nuclear weapons. and we don't say that. we talk about overwhelming response. we usually don't say nuclear weapons. but we could do it from any platform in the world. it is it would be kind of harmful, to put i mildly, to the south korean president tlfl president has just been impeached and she's awaiting criminal trial. the expectation is a left of center party will take over in south korea. traditionally left of center parties have been ones to give more slack to the north koreans

and traditional they tend to be a little more critical of the americans. i don't think this will help our relationship with south korea. and that's critical. there's nothing we can do on north korea without the support or the action quiescence of our allies of south korea. >> the reason the impeached president, one of the reasons she got elected was she talked tougher on north korea. and it was more than her opponent. >> that's true. that's true. certainly, the left of center party, i don't want to say they're way out there on the left. but the left of center party has been a little less supportive of dialogue, and the sorts of things they are supportive of with almost to north korea. so you're absolutely right. but i think putting nuclear weapons back into south korea would not be welcomed by the public there. i think they want to see america

engage. they like it when we get visited from secretary of defense mattis and tillerson. but i don't think they would see that putting nuclear weapons back on their soil would be a step forward. >> apparently one of the other options is finding some way to remove kim jong-un. obviously we don't have an official policy in this country. it is illegal to target and assassinate another leader. but is that a functional option? >> well, you know, i think most people if they woke up and found out he was gone works consider that a pretty good day. i'm not sure that's on the list of really feasible options. i think things like what can we do to retard the program? through cyber attacks or something else. those are things that i think we need to look at very carefully. and more importantly, as importantly, is an effort to talk to the chinese to say,

look, this problem is not going away. we can't talk about measures that we've tried before and have failed. we need to really press this. because once they deliver, or once they have a deliverable weapon, there is going to be a great deal of difficulty in dealing with him. so i think we really need get chinese attention including by saying everything is on the table. even though everything we have on the table isn't such a great option. >> that's all the time i have here. if you love this conversation, we spaenlt good 30 minutes going deep on the korea conversation. get wherever you get your podcast. thank you, sir. >> thank you. up next, why i'm obsessed with a governing record that keeps getting longer. (man vo) it was may, when dad forgot

how to brush his teeth. (woman vo) in march, my husband didn't recognize our grandson. (woman 2 vo) that's when moderate alzheimer's made me a caregiver. (avo) if their alzimer's is getting worse, ask about once-a-day namzaric. namzaric is approved for moderate to severe alzheimer's disease in patients who are taking donepezil. it may improve cognition and overall function, and may slow the worsening of symptoms for a while. namzaric does not change the underlying disease progression. don't take if allergic to memantine, donepezil, piperidine, or any of the ingredients in namzaric. tell the doctor about any conditions; including heart, lung, bladder, kidney or liver problems, seizures, stomach ulcers, or procedures with anesthesia. serious side effects may occur, including muscle problems if given anesthesia; slow heartbeat, fainting, more stomach acid

which may lead to ulcers and bleeding; nausea, vomiting, difficulty urinating, seizures, and worsening of lung problems. most common side effects are headache, diarrhea, dizziness, loss of appetite, and bruising. (woman 2 vo) i don't know what tomorrow will bring but i'm doing what i can. (avo) ask about namzaric today. welcome back. i'm obsessed with the longest serving governor in american history who tonight is still serving, even though he is supposed to have a new job and should be in palm beach right now. i'm talking about iowa governor terry branson. he is prepared to give it up and move out of the state and out of the country to become the next u.s. ambassador to china. the trump transition announced his nomination way back in december. formally submitted it on day one. even though president of china, who is an old personal friend, why he was nominated srgs meeting with president trump

today in florida, he is still in des moines. what's the hold-up? the governor's office said he's been in washington to meet with the ste departmt and the members of congress and he has suitted althe paperwork. but no hearing date has been set by the committee. they tell us a hearing should be scheduled for early may. six months after his initial public nomination. and word inside the administration is that they do expect a hearing soon. so for now, the longest serving governor's record keeps getting longer. and iowa's lieutenant governor will have to wait a little longer before she becomes iowa's first woman to be governor of that state. g tomorrow -10am? g tomorrow -10am? staff meeting. noon? eating. 3:45? uh, compliance training. 6:30? sam's baseball practice. 8:30? tai chi. yeah, so sounds relaxing. alright, 9:53? i usually make their lunches then, and i have a little vegan so wow, you are busy. wouldn't it be great if you had investments that worked as hard as you do? yeah.

introducing essential portfolios. the automated investing solution that lets you focus on your life.

white house shake-ups could be on the way. bannon allies, inside and outside the white house say he's disappointed and he blames jared kushner for some of the damaging leaks against him.

if before they were philosophical differences in the white house, now there are clearly defined camps. sources close to bannon says that allies are telling him to lay low and wait out the storm. that the storm. all right, michael, trying -- it seems like everybody knows what the camps are. >> right. >> there isour priebus camp which i guess the establishment wing rnc camp, the bannon-ites however you want to describe them, and the jared and ivanka camp. the way it's been described to me, they all get along personally. this is not -- this is professional feuds more than anything else. >> it's nothing new for a west wing. there is always different camps. you go back to the reagan era, the conservatives versus the jim baker moderates was always the division. the difference with this is there is no real strong leader besides the president himself. so, what you're seeing now in these, sort of emerged, jared

kushner is that strong leader kind of de facto. and that's i think the biggest source of all this confusion of where are these different factions and who is really in charge and who is sort of the insurge entitles. they've all been kind of insurgents and now kushner and the new york crowd is on the rise. >> isn't the bigger problem that you have a president who doesn't have a strong governing philosophy? he came in as this idea logically flexible -- he's an idea logical flexible now as candidate. you have all these different warring groups. we have to push his agenda forward. what is that agenda? we've now been all over the place. >> the real problem, shane, i hear, it is hard, gary cone and steve bannon just have a different world view. jared kushner and steve bannon -- this is not -- and at the end of the day, donald trump has to make a vision decision. >> exactly. and another name we didn't mention is h.r. mcmaster who comes in as national security advisor and seems to be having a lot of influence over what's going on there, too.

in terms of maybe bringing some of that coherent policy to him. we were talking about this earlier. would not surprise me if mcmaster and mattis were very much at the forefront driving donald trump on this decision to strike isyria. this is a plan that's clearly been on the shelf for a long time. onceter came in, everybody thought, great, now the grown ups are back in charge again, we're going to get some clarity and stability into this process which we haven't seen. >> the thing to me that seems to be, though -- i don't know how you get around this -- is the jared kushner situation. he is somebody that can't be fired. >> right. >> okay, he's the president's son-in-law. and on one hand he has no official title, right? it seems like everybody reports to him. >> right. that in and of itself creates staff angst. >> absolutely. you do have to wonder if we're going to be seeing some more turnover than we've seen in the last week from the west wing. but, again, if that's how kushner emerges as sort of a strong leader who really, you new york stock exchange does reflect what the president wants to do and can sort of direct

people, the trump administration, the trump west wing will benefit from that. the question is, is jared kushner capable of doing that? and can he get the support from all of these other factions who may not like where he is, but at least can respect the fact that he's got the ear of the president better than anybody. >> and the bannon wing has, if you look in terms of putting points on the board, they've been much more successful than the other wings. >> how? >> coming in on -- >> which travel ban? >> at least they put -- here's what i'm saying. >> i don't think the president believes they've put points on the board. that's bannon's problem. >> let's say this. in terms of putting things foard, travel ban, crackdown on immigration, i.c.e., et cetera, and then jeff sessions over at the justice department on police reform, right? these are much more in the camp that you would argue is in the sort of bannon world versus -- i guess the only thing on the other side would be not cracking

down as hard on nafta, right, sort of a pulled back nafta. >> no doubt the economic guys -- yes. >> there is no tax reform yet. >> all the successes from the bannon wing are a problem. >> unpopular. >> not just that. internally within the west wing. steve bannon gets put on magazine covers calling him president bannon. this is, i think, a problem for him. his success, he gets too big for his britches when you have a president who wants all the attention on himself and all the credit for himself. so, this is, i think, a problem for bannon. he's just gotten too successful. >> we haven't mentioned reince priebus's name. everybody assumes it is not a matter of if, but when. is there a way he can salvage this? >> presumably there is a way, but it seems like there's not many options for him. where does he go elsewhere in the white house? he's not going to be reassigned chief of staff even if effectively kushner is the chief of staff. it doesn't look great. the way this palace intrigue plays out, i never know whose

version of the script i'm actually reading. >> there is a reality show feel to it. >> a.omarosa is going to come back. >> i think the president oddly enjoys it as a spectator. but i think he's starting to get frustrated. thank you, guys. appreciate it. after the break, it may be the most impactful thing that's happened since president trump's election, and no one is paying attention. stay tuned. when this bell rings... ...it starts a chain reaction... ...that's heard throughout the connected business world.

at&t network security helps protect business, from the largest financial markets to the smallest transactions, by sensing cyber-attacks in near real time and automatically deploying countermeasures. keeping the world of business connected and protected. that's the power of and. ykeep you sidelined.ng that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you.

but when we brought our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how.

did you know slow internet can actually hold your business back? say goodbye to slow downloads, slow backups, slow everything. comcast business offers blazing fast and reliable internet that's over 6 times faster than slow internet from the phone company. say hello to internet speeds up to 250 mbps. and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more a month. call today. comcast business. built for business. well, in case you missed it

in midst of this seemingly nonstop news cycle, 420 days after the death of former justice antonin scalia, a vote has been confirmed 54-45, neil gorsuch will be sworn in as the 113th justice of the supreme court that will happen on monday. the last few weeks this very important news has been eclipsed by a variety of other important news. the beginning of gorsuch confirmation hearings, that was the day fbi director comey confirmed an investigation into links between the trump campaign and the russian government. day two of the neil gorsuch confirmation hearings, that was thday president trump weo capitol hill and told publicans they could lose their jobs if the ert to repea and replace obama car fails. day three of the gorsuch confirmation hearings, that was the day congressman devin nunes and his associates were incidentally swept up by surveillance and took that information to the white house. you know what that led to. by the way, there was a terror attack in london on the same day. that brings us to today after

all eyes on the syria strike, gorsuch elected to the highest court in the land. by the way, while all this was happening, the senate got rid of the filibuster for the supreme court as well all of it and, oh, by the way, the entire gorsuch thing felt like an oh, by the way all the time. you didn't miss it here. that's all for tonight. we're back monday with more mttp daily. meet the press on your local station. it is a packed show i promise you. for the record with greta starts right now. take it away, greta. >> thanks, chuck. see you sunday. ielt be watching. tonight exclusive nbc breaking news, president trump thinking about putting american nukes on south korean soil. now this breaking news is just this minute coming into our newsroom and we will have the full report for you just as soon as it's ready. in the meantime, we start with syria and the question, is president trump about to strike again?