i hope so. >> i missed you every day. >> that's why you take time off. that's why i tell the boss, you're not missed if you don't take time off, right? >> i hope so. >> it's good to be back. i don't know, nothing much happened in the few days i was gone, but i'll catch up. thanks, nicole. if it's tuesday, there's even more russia smoke. tonight, the former head of the cia says he worried last fall that russia was trying to undermine our election and that the trump campaign may, indeed, have been involved. >> frequently, individuals who go along a treasonous path do not even realize they're along that path until it gets to be a bit too late. plus, the flynn investigation. >> we're not taking contempt of congress off the table either. >> republican senator susan collins joins us to discuss the next steps. and terror in manchester. >> but this attack stands out for his appalling, sickening cowardice. >> what kind of message president trump is sending with his latest remarks that condemn the terrorist action in the uk.

>> i will call them from now on losers, because that's what they are. they're losers. >> this is "mtp daily" and it starts right now. good evening and welcome to "mtp daily." i'm chuck todd here in washington. good to be back. and since the last time i saw you, it's been revelation after revelation for the trump white house, on multiple fronts, surrounding multiple angles into the russia probe. all of these stories, the firing of james comey, president trump's meeting with russian officials, his disclosing of classified information during that meet, the drip, drip, drip of michael flynn who's now pleading the fifth, the possibility that someone inside the white house is now a significant person of interest in the russia investigation, oh, and i think at one point, calling james comey a nut job in front of russis by the president, that allegation out there, on any one of these stories would be huge on its own

for this white house. but add them all up, including possible charges of obstruction of justice and you do have a presidency in crisis. and today two of the nation's top spy chiefs and the former director of the cia, all answered questions on capitol hill. all of this while the president is still on his first overseas trip. he's now in rome, before a meeting tomorrow with pope francis. the president is also confronting the first large-scale terror attack in the western world since his inauguration. the suicide bombing attack at a concert in manchester, england. we'll have the latest reporting on that, ahead, as well. but first, tonight we're focusing on the increasing pressure this president is under. the latest, "the washington post" and nbc news reporting that president trump asked the director of national intelligence, dan coats, and admiral mike rogers, head of the national security agency, to publicly say they saw no evidence the trump campaign had colluded with the russian effort to interfere in the 2016 election. both of them reportedly declined. director coates testified on capitol hill today, and while he didn't confirm the conversation

happened, he didn't deny it, either. >> i have always believed that given the nature of my position and the information in which we share, it's not appropriate for me to comment public ly on any f that. so on this topic as well as other topics, i don't feel it's appropriate to characterize discussions and conversations with the president. >> if the record was wrong, do you think you would have corrected it? folks, coates did nothing there to correct the record. so that leads many to believe the reporting o of what the president said is true, and that's a member of the president's administration, an appointed cabinet meer, publicly protecting his own office rather than the president. admiral rogers was also on the hill today for budget hearings, and wasn't asked about the reporting. in a separate hearing today, former cia director, john brennan, also seemingly made matters worse for the president,

raising further questions about ties between the trump campaign and the kremlin. >> i encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between russian officials and u.s. persons involved in the trump campaign that i was concerned about because of known russian efforts to subbourn such individuals, and it raised questions in my mind if the russians were able to gain the cooperation of individuals. frequently, individuals along that treasonous path don't even realize they're along that path until it gets to be a bit too late. >> folks, senator richard burr and michael warner addressed brennan's comments moments ago, saying their committee will look into it, as part of its investigation. >> what we're looking at now,

part of this investigation, is to look at those contacts that mr. brennan spoke about, and see what they were, how extensive they were, and what they led to, if anything. >> joining me now is michael lighter chief of staff at the department of national intelligence. welcome back. >> good to be here, chuck. >> let's address this issue of the accusation of trying of the president, supposedly making a personal plea to dan coats at dni, mike rogers at nsa, to definitively say there was no evidence of collusion. what did you make of director coates not addressing the issue at all, other than saying, i'm going to keep it private? >> well, i think director coates, someone who i have a great deal of respect for, did exactly what a director of national intelligence should do. which was, thanks very much, take notes, stay internal, and

make sure that he is still focused on being the director of national intelligence, and not issuing statements which fundamentally are at odds with what the intelligence communities have thus far factored. >> let me play devil's advocate here. obviously the president is getting chastised by many in the intelligence community, many republicans and democrats who say, hey, this is inappropriate behavior. he's getting criticized because the assumption is he's guilty or there's some guilty there. what about from his point of view? if he believes he's innocent, or he tells us he's innocent, and if he believes he's this innocent, and he feels that it's a witch hunt, why wouldn't he make those phone call calls? and why wouldn't that be appropriate? >> we know the president has no problem saying that himself. >> but if you truly believe this, why wouldn't he act this way? >> it's really clear. and honestly, if he wants to call up his director of homeland security or secretary of state or anyone like that and say, hey, we agree with the president, that's just fine. but the line has to be drawn, really, in two places. the most sensitive one is the law enforcement people who were

ing the investigation. and that is one that can't be olated you can't go and call the investigators and say, let me tell you what you need to say and what you need to find. we know that's a problem. but the second one, a little bit farther way, equally problematic, and talking to the rest of the intelligence community and say, hey, do you have anything else in that intelligence bucket, and even if you don't, really, i need you to get out there and talk about why i'm not guilty. and the intelligence community is going to say, what they should say, what dan coats, i think, did say was, no, we're the referee, we see the facts, we call the facts, we're not political partisans to defend your presidency. we respect you, we work for you, but that's not our role. >> so is it -- walk me through. i think there's a lot of viewers who probably sit there and are more cynical than most of us in washington and say, please, presidents are always looking find intelligence to back up their beliefs. george w. bush did it with iraq. barack obama did it with iran, trying to calm down the iran

worries. how prevalent is it? walk me through this process. >> that skepticism is reasonable to have p. i can only tell you from my experience, first for president george w. bush and then president barack obama, there are policies, we knew they had policies and they wanted to pursue things, but for both of those presidents, when we showed up and said, mr. president, these are the facts we see, this is our assessment of the situation, here you go, i never had a president, i never had anyone on their staff say, you know, mike, we don't think those are the facts. you can disagree with the assessment -- >> what about, hey, mike, can't you keep finding intelligence that backseat th this up? >> they can tell us to go back and look and look and look, and we would do that. but the idea of shaping those facts once we called them and said, this is what we -- >> there's a line between "keep looking" versus shaping. >> onc we said what it was, they didn't pushba. and even on iraq, i worked on the commission that investigated the wmd in iraq, that was a

bipartisan commission and ultimately it found, no, the president didn't try to shape the intelligence -- >> it really was bad intelligence. >> it was just bad! and it supported a political outcome, but in my experience, the idea of a president or national security council calling and saying, there ought to be different facts, we ought to know those facts, didn't see it. >> if you were a political actor in this town, political analyst in this town, and they say to you hey, mike lighter, this looks like the intel community and indeed donald trump are at war, what would you say? >> i said, it may not be a war, but there's a series of skirmishes. there's a level of tensions between these two parts to have the government, our government and the intelligence community that is there to support them, and the law enforcement, which is really problematic and bad for the country, which is one of the problems we see all these leaks. >> mike leiter, thank you, sir. >> thank you. director brennan's testimony today, during it, we saw potentially telling exchange between the director and trey

gowdy, who has been a trump ally at these committee hearings. goudy's line of question today maybe a hint at where the trump administration will go as they attempt to insulate the president from any russia-related collateral damage. take a listen. >>ed did you see evidence of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between donald trump and russian state actors? >> i saw information and intelligence that was worthy of investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not such cooperation of collusion was taking place. >> and that would have been directly between the candidate and russian state actors? >> that's not what i said. i'm not going to talk about any individuals. >> but that was my question. you answered it, you didn't answer it that way. >> no, i responded to your query. i'm not going to respond to particular elements of your question, because i think it would be inappropriate for me to do so here. >> it was one of the more

fascinating exchanges between those two highly intelligent men and very good at their, let's say, rhetorical bouts. let me bring in tonight's president, maria teresa kumar, susan page and sarah fagan, and a cnbc contributor. welcome all. susan, i isolated that exchange because it was very interesting to me that trey gowdy celebrated donald trump, the individual, from what is the allegation -- it's never been an allegation that donald trump, personally, was involved. the allegation is that trump soer associates. politically, i thought it was a clever attempt by trey gowdy. to me, it looks like a sneak peek of what the defense could look like as weo forward. >> and what we may have heard from president trump just, what, 24 hours ago, when he said, i can speak for myself. which is a sign, perhaps, that he is no longer completely confident that everyone around him would get the same clean bill of health when it comes to

working or colluding with the russians. >> this has been the right's strategy all along. because -- you're saying they stumbled upon it now? >> right! because there hasn't been strong evidence that donald trump personally was involved. there hasn't been any evidence. >> the evidence has always been on the periphery with associates. >> and even though michael flynn certainly served in the administration, it was a very brief period of time. and while there's rumors and articles about potential people in the white house being involved, right now, it's all outside the white house. and it's all outside of the trump administration. and that's where donald trump wants that to live. >> well, we don't know that it's all outside. >> no, i said that -- >> she made that caveat. >> right. >> we have that report in there. but it is sort of -- you know, is that a -- to me, it's an acknowledgement that number one, this is going to go on for a while. and it goes to susan's point that maybe he's starting to -- let's take him at face value here. he's going, maybe somebody did something. and i don't know about it. >> i think he's recognizing that -- sarah's absolutely right. that should have been their first strategy.

i know i have a clean bill of health, i don't know if everybody else does. by ensuring that he does that, not only does he distance himself, but he gives the republicans wiggle room to do the investigation. >> by the way, it was interesting in the story about coates and rogers, who wasn't mentioned in the intel chiefs. no mike pompeo. >> yeah, where was it? >> don't know. but mike pompeo isn't there and the first time we know that mike pompeo, there was a time where this white house -- maybe the white house has backed off on trying to get the cia to do this. maybe he wasn't asked -- >> don't forget, one of his first challenges as president was with the cia coming into office and, you know, perhaps they -- >> maybe they're taking a hands-off approach with the cia, more than they are the other folks. >> you know, i think you do see the cost for president trump, having been so critical of intelligence, because the intelligence agencies are now standing up for themselves, ensuring the sanctity of their own reputations. >> they're lockstep center and i think that's the challenge that trump has. he basically blew a lot of political cover early on and i

think that they would have been less united under -- in this situation, had they been -- had president trump been much more thoughtful -- >> more respectful. >> so if we look at the two major developments of the day and put it this way, first, you're starting to see the defend trump the individual defense, and the other is, is dan coats a leading indicator of folks who are starting to say, i'm going to protect myself before worrying about what's happening in that oval? >> yeah, perhaps. that looks like what happened. although, the reality is, when you run a national intelligence operation, you can't go out there and have a political viewpoint and -- >> not at all. >> and dan coats is a pro and he understands that. even if someone at thehite house was suggesting he'd do that, lucky for them, he's smart enough to know that he can't do that. >> yeah, bigger question, though, on whether republican members of congress, congressional leaders, might feel, i want to protect the institution of the congress, not the white house. i want to protect my own reputation, not protect the president. because these are the kind of tough questions that could possibly come up --

>> and i think a lot of folks are looking very closely at how trump is -- his dealing with his personal administration within the white house, where they feel that they are not being protected by the president right now. and that's why these folks are saying, i need to protect my reputation. >> to susan's point, we're seeing that in the senate. we're not yet seeing it in the house. and i think, you know, if more shoes drop in this investigation, you'll start to see it in the house. >> very quickly, war rooms in a white house. did you guys have one at any time that ever popped up? was it during social security or during like -- >> there were various iterations of it. >> a good way of handling things or bad? >> it ends up usually being people -- it's a good concept of people work from their deaths and stofort of goes away. but in the case of -- i saw some reporting that had been done about the trump administration looking at bringing someone in to handle -- recognizing, this is here to stay, this investigation -- >> go find somebody -- >> we'll find a prowho's be who

through it, we'll have them be the legal person and spokesperson that's the right strategy. >> that makes sense if the principal can allow -- bill clinton could compartmentalize, can donald trump? >> and reagan had trouble compartmentalizing. they had him stop talking about it. and is it possible for anyone to make donald trump stop answering questions or even volunteer -- >> i thi it's in his nature to be a micromanaging and this is the antithesis of that and he has to show discipline. >> you guys are sticking around. coming up, we're going to focus on the tragedy on the other side of the atlantic. manchester is mourning as new details of that terror attack emerge. i'll talk with the uk's ambassador to the united states right here on set and to terrorism expert about where the investigation in the uk goes from here. tech: when your windshield needs to be fixed... trust safelite autoglass. for these parents, driving around was the only way to get their baby to sleep. so when their windshield got cracked... customer: we can't drive this car. tech: ...they wanted it fixed right. so they scheduled with safelite.

our exclusive trueseal technology means a strong, reliable bond, every time. at safelite, we stand behind our work. bye, bye. because the ones you love, sit behind it. (parents whisper jingle) safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪"my friends know me so well. they can tell what i'm thinking, just by looking in my eyes. but what they didn't know was that i had dry, itchy eyes. i used artificial tears from the moment i woke up... ...to the moment i went to bed. so i finally decided to show my eyes some love,... ...some eyelove. eyelove means having a chat with your eye doctor about your dry eyes because if you're using artificial tears often and still have symptoms, it could be chronic dry eye. it's all about eyelove, my friends.

president trump using colloquialisms and schoolyard

insults, but today he used what seems like an odd childist putdown when referring to the terrorist attack in manchester, england, that killed at least 22 people. >> so many young, beautiful, innocent people living and enjoying their lives the murdered by evil losers in life. i won't call them monsters, because they would like that term. they would think that's a great na name. i will call them, from now on, losers, because that's what they are. they'relosers. >> change in rhetoric comes after another one earlier this week, when the president backed away fm the phrase "radical islamiterrorism" when giving a speech in saudi arabia. that phrase was a centerpiece of trump's presidential campaign and he the frequently criticized hillary clinton for not saying it when talking about the fight against terror. but he never said it while in

saudi arabia. we'll be back in 60 seconds. ♪ this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪

welcome back. moments ago, british prime minister theresa may raised the terror threat level in the uk to critical. that's the highest level the uk has. it follows last night's terror attack that killed 22 people and injured 59 others after a concert at manchester arena. today police have identified only two of the victims, ages 8 and 18. this afternoon, british officials identified the bombing suspect as the 22-year-old salman ramadan abedi. authorities are now questioning his 23-year-old brother. investigators do not know if there was any coordination between the bomber and a terrorist network, though isis has claimed responsibity. here now in the united kingdom's ambassador to the united states, kim berric. thanks for coming in. >> thanks for having me. >> let's start with what we know about this investigation. i know it's in the early stages yet. investigators convinced that this was sort of an isis, if not isis-directed, isis inspired.

>> chuck, it's been less than 24 hours since the appalling atrocity last night in manchester. investigators have said it was an act of terrorism. who's responsible is still to -- i mean, the organization behind it, if there was one, is still to be determined. there are 400 police officers working on this. we will get to the truth of the matter. it will be a very complete, very thorough, very intense investigation, but it's too early to draw conclusions. >> the prime minister raised the threat level. you're already at a heightened level. you have a alert system, the u.s. scrapped theirs. we had the color-coded system for a while. that's been scrapped. what are you asking citizens to do when they hear that? was wha what does that mean to the average uk system? >> this is a well-practiced system. it what it means is that armed police officers will now be released to conduct, to support the investigation and in some cases, they will be replaced by

armed troops, all under the commandf thepolice. and we're asking citizens to be extra vigilant, extra alert. but this is an appropriate response, decided in the cobra meeting this afternoon, the specialist can that looks at the threat. the prime minister just announced it, as you say. i used to sit on that committee when i was national security adviser, so i know how this goes. it's the response to specialist advice, who people who understand the terrorist threat. >> so it means, it's more of a resource dedication decision, meaning, this means we're appropriating more resources for x, y, and z. >> it so means there'll be more presence on the street, it releases more officers to conduct the investigation and the investigation is key to where we go next. >> it's still part of the investigation, but there's some early concern that this is somebody that basically -- a british citizen that went to fight, i think in libya, there's

some potential connection there. how concerned is the may administration now of this foreign fighter issue? that those coming -- obviously, it's been a big concern here in the united states. >> yeah. terrorism is a global threat, as the president said in his speech in riyadh a couple of days ago. and there are people who have been abroad, who get radical i'd abroad, people who get radicalized at home. drawing conclusions about this particular case and how this individual got radicalized. that will come out as the investigation is completed. >> new security procedures, any extra security procedures, besides raising the terror threat level, when we see it looks like he didn't get into the arena itself. >> it looks like he got into the perimeter. but what does this mean? new security? what would happen next to protect the public? >> well, first of all, as i've said, the public will be encouraged to be as ale as

possible. we will have to learn the lessons, if there are, from this. i oughtn't to jump to conclusions in advance of that. we already have exceptional security forces and police force. so i think we're well positioned to cope with the threat. as the prime minister said, just now, they're not going to win the terrorists. our values will prevail, but we need to look and see what happened in manchester and see where we go from here. >> final question, obviously, trying to win over hearts and minds will be a part of this campaign. because you can say with some of these individuals, we're losing the hearts and minds to potential radicalization. what is the right way to combat this? >> we need to be as vigilant and as professional as possible about stopping the threat, stopping -- you know, i think we've stopped half a dozen, actually, more, plots in the last call of years. but also, it's a question of ensuring that we work with our

muslim communities, that they have champions who support our values and who represent those values to the rest of the communities. so both sides of the equation. >> kim darroch, ambassador to the united states, condolences to you. >> thank you. evan kohlmann is an nbc news terrorism analyst and cofounder of "flashpoint." so evan, what you saw here, how -- this felt more similar to many events we've seen recently, whether it's the turkey airport bombing, in some way. is that the most similar incident, and yet, it's almost similar to the idea of a lone -- of a lone actor getting radicalized locally and acting locally, not globally. >> well, i think there's one problem with that thesis. i think, you know, it's possible, but the question is, is that if this is a lone actor, if this is someone who is self-dribself

self-radic self-radicalized, how did he manage to put together an explosive device that was so, unfortunately, successful, and was successful on what appears to be the first try. if you look at the tsarnaev brothers up during the boston marathon bombings, most of the explosives they put together never detonated. they failed to go off. and the ones that did, mercifully killed very few people. this one killed a lot. and it was very effective. and again, a 22-year-old guy, that lives in the uk, that has limited access to explosives or explosive-making techniques. how did he manage to do this all on his own? that's the part that doesn't make a lot of sense. it's not easy to build explosives. it's not easy to build bombs at home. it's possible. it's just not likely. >> well, look, i wasn't suggesting that he self-radicalized and self-did anything, but there seems to be some sort of in between here, right? where you have more and more -- and we've seen isis propaganda say this, right, which is this idea of, hey, act in your community. you can be more effective that way.

act in your community. and so, have we found evidence yet, when they self-zriblgized, that they actually, then, actively help to then train a self-internet radicalized suspect? >> you bet. you bet. there was a guy from the uk who went over to syria and was part of isis and was using the internet to send back instructions to folks here in the united states and in the uk, giving them advice about how to carry out terrorist attacks. and in fact, several of those individuals, in fact, did carry out terrorist attacks. so if you look at the communique that claims responsibility for isis for this latest attack in manchester, there's good reason to believe that whoever wrote that communique was n familiar with the intimate details of what happened. there's no mentionf a suicide bomber. there's no specification about what kind of explosives or how it was used. it's kind of a very generic claim of credit. it could have been written by anyone who read the newspaper. so while it's certainly very likely that this individual had

some kind of assistance, you know, there is that suggestion that this is at least part -- done in part, independently. and we just very recently, on may 4th, isis issued a call in gl english to its western supporters, people living in the u.s. and uk, to carry out attacks on soft targets, including very specifically concert halls. so i think we're going to be looking at that list of targets that they put out, just a few weeks ago, and i think it's going to be incumbent upon the rest of us to look at that list and say, are there any other things on this list that we should be looking at securing a little bit better than we had before, because there is that active hunt for people here in the west, in the u.s. and the uk, who are willing to carry out attacks at the behest of isis. >> last question, where is this headed? is it any group where there's 500 or more, we're going to a magnet orometer now? what's going to be the line when it comes that type of security? we're already seeing it at sporting events in this country,

in some countries where there's magnetometers now. is that the future? >> well, look, in the uk, it's amazing. they really do generally have very tight security around these venues. it's impossible to sece everything. they can't put metal detectors in the parking lot. and if they did, there's plenty of other soft targets. isis has been even talking about carrying out attacks at public swimming pools. how are we going to predict every single public swimming pool in the united states, in the uk? it's not possible. unfortunately, that's what these folks have realized. it's much more successful for them to go after soft targets that we can't possibly fully protect than trying to carry out another 9/11, which has a very low probability of success. so far, most of the attacks we've seen have been low scale. this was not low scale. let's hope that this is not the trend, because if this is a case, it's very difficult to prevent attacks like this and obviously, if you see the casualties coming out of manchester, it's just shocking. it's very, very sad to see this.

and it's difficult to conceive of how anyone could be so inhuman as to target little children. >> target pre-teens and teenagers, absolutely. evan kohlmann, nbc security analyst, evan, thanks very much. just ahead, the senate intel committee weighs its options after michael flynn's decision to plead the fifth. senator susan collins, a member of the intel committee, joins us next. so you miss the big city? i don't miss much... definitelyothe traffic. excuse me, doctor... the genomic data came in. thank you. you can do that kind of analysis? yeah, watson. i can quickly analyze millio of clinical and scientific reports to help you tailor treatment options for the patient's genomic profile. you can do that? even way out here? yes. even way out here. wise man, i'm nervous about affecting my good credit score. i see you've planted an uncertainty tree. chop that thing down. the clarity you seek...

lies within the creditwise app from capital one. creditwise helps you protect your credit. and it's completely free for everyone. it's free for everyone? do hawks use the stars to navigate? i don't know. aw, i thought you did. i don't know either. either way it's free for everyone. cool. what's in your wallet? i'm in the kitchen. i need my blood sugar to stay in control. i need to shave my a1c i'm always on call. an insulin that fits my schedule is key. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ (announcer) tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, swtiting, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure.

your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue, orhrhroat, dizziness, or confusion. ask your health care provider if you're tresiba® ready. covered by most insurance and medicare plans. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ abreak through your allergies.? try new flonase sensimist allergy relief instead of allergy pills. it's more complete allergy relief

in a gentle mist experience you'll barely feel. using unique mistpro technology, new flonase sensimist delivers a gentle mist to help block six key inflammatory substances that cause your symptoms. most allergy pills only block one. and six is greater than one. new flonase sensimist changes everything. up next, senator susan collins on the intel committee's next move in their russia

investigation. first, hampton pearson with the cnbc market wrap. >> thanks, chuck. we had stocks climbing for a fourth session with banks leading the way. the dow gaining 43 points. the s&p up 4. the nasdaq rising by five points. stocks on wall street got a boost following the release of president trump's proposed 2018 budget, with plans to slash federal spending by $3.6 trillion over the next ten years. new home sales tumbling 11.4% in april, the biggest drop in more than two careeyears. that's it from cnbc, first in business worldwide. what's that?

p3 planters nuts, jerky and seeds. i like a variety in my protein. totally, that's why i have this uh trail mix. wow minty. p3 snacks. the more interesting way to get your protein. bp developed new, industry-leading software to monitor drilling operations in real-time, so our engineers can solve problems with the most precise data at their fingertips. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. my belly pain i could build a small city with all the over-the-counter products i've used. enough! i've tried enough laxatives to cover the eastern seaboard. i've climbed a mount everest of fiber. probiotics? enough! (avo) if you've had enough, tell your doctor what you've tried and how long you've been at it. linzess works differently from laxatives. linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation or chronic constipation. it can help relieve your belly pain, and lets you have more frequent and complete bowel movements

that are easier to pass. do not give linzess to children less than six, and it should not be given to children six to less than eighteen. it may harm them. don't take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach-area pain and swelling. talk to your doctor about managing your symptoms proactively with linzess.

welcome back. senate intelligence committee is now responding to former national security adviser, michael flynn, invoking his fifth amendment right. rather than comply with their subpoena for documents. in the past hour, the committee's top members announced they are now sending a letter to flynn's lawyer, questioning if he can invoke the fifth amendment over documents. chairmanb burr says the committe is leaving all options on the

table, including a contempt charge, et this information from flynn. flyns lawyer says their client has been subject to, quote, outrageous allegations and a reminder, flynn had asked for immunity in exchange for testimony. and nows dealing with the subpoena. joining me now is maine republican senator, susan collins, a member of the senate select committee on intelligence. good afternoon, senator collins. >> good afternoon, chuck. >> let me start with what the chair and vice chair of your committee announced going up to corporations. i take it you conquer, you do not believe you can invoke fifth amendment rights based on giving you documents that were created before any of these allegations happened. >> there's some real legal issues here. and i believe that the committee is right to challenge general flynn's claim of fifth amendment protections for these documents. in the meantime, the committee is issuing another subpoena for

his business documents, which may give us the information that we need and where there's a pretty clear argument that they would not be protected by any claim of fifth amendment privilege. >> how much is this holding up the investigation right now? >> it's not really holding us up much, as much as we would like to have these documents, because we're proceeding to issue many other requests for documents from other people who are involved. our staff has conducted some 30 interviews and we've been reviewing information, intelligence information, at cia headquarters in langley. >> is mike flynn the only subpoena you've issued? >> no, it is not. but he can't tell you the names of the others that have been issued, but there have been

other subpoenas issued. and also, and this is important, there have been requests made or demands made that no documents can be destroyed. that documents have to be preserved. >> right. so, walk me through this process. so, for instance, paul manafort, roger stone, have turned over some documents. you didn't make a subpoena yet to them. you made a request. is that how this has worked? you make a request. if you deny the request, then you vote as a committee on whether to subpoena? >> generally the way this works is we ask for voluntary cooperation first. that makes sense, to give people the opportunity from the interview and to provide documents on a voluntary basis. if that doesn't work, then the chairman and the vice chairman are authorized to issue subpoenas for the interviews and the documents. if that doesn't work, then we're going to be entering into a period where we work with the

special council to make sure we're not interfering with his attempt to pursue any criminal case that could be warranted. our operation, our investigation is into the counterintelligence aspects of this case. >> so, does that mean you're going to -- how aressively are you going to pursue this story in "the washington post" about the white house, supposedly the president calling up a the dni head, dan coats, nsa head, mike rogers, and looking for them to confirm or come out with a statement that says there was no collusion? >> we certainly would like to hear whether that was done, but i'm sure that the special council will want to, also, as he evaluates whether or not criminal charges are warranted in this very complex case. but i do want to make a distinction on why we need two investigations.

only the special council can determine whether or not criminal charges are ultimately warranted. but only congress could pass a law to increase the sanctions on the russian government, if we find, as i believe that we will, that russia did have a very active campaign to influence our elections last fall. >> senator, in two different answers, you have said, you've got to check with the special counsel's office, make assusures doesn't run into what they're doing. that -- the special counsel investigation is going to slow down your investigation, is that fair to say? >> it's going to slow it down a little bit, but i don't think that it in any way removes the need for our investigation and already, the chairman and the vice chairman are in the midst of working out a system for consultation with the special council. so my hope that that will move

along quite quickly and that we will come to an agreement on certain guideposts. >> do you -- how cooperative -- would you describe manafort and stone right now as being cooperative with your investigation? >> well, they have been more cooperative than general flynn, certainly. >> well, that's a low bar right now. >> that's true. but we've -- we still have a lot of work to do. i don't mean to imply that we have everything that we need from any of the characters. >> joe lieberman, i know you were very close to him when you were in the senate. you guys worked very closely together on the homeland security committee for years. a lot of your colleagues are uncomfortable with an elected official at the fbi. where are you at this? you must be torn. >> i don't want to see someone who is currently in public office, but joe has been out of the senate for a number of years. he's a former attorney general

of connecticut. he has an intelligence and homeland security background. we worked very closely with bob mueller, when we chaired and co-chaired the homeland security committee. so i'm a fan of joe lieberman. he has unquestioned integrity and that's what we need. i would not be pushing for him if he were currently a senator, but he's not and i think he would be great. >> senator collins, i'll put you down as a "yes" on the lieberman column there. >> you can. >> as always, thanks for coming on. >> thank you, chuck. >> you got it. up ahead on "the lid," how are the president's biggest supporters? could they end up the biggest losers under his latest budget proposal? that's right, the budget was rolled out today. it comes to te, i need someone that understands my unique needs. it comes to te, my dell small business advisor has gotten to know our business so well that is feels like he's a part of our team. with one phone call, he sets me up with tailored products

and services. and when my advisor is focused on my tech, i can focus on my small business. ♪ ♪ ayou don't have to choose just one thing. choose your trio with any 3 of 9 selections for $15.99. like new creamy lobster pasta toasted parmesan shrimp and southern-style crab cakes. come create your trio before it ends.

welcome back. tonight, i'm obsessed with james bond and the actors who blamed him. roger ploor dmoore died today a agef 89. from "live and let die" in 1973 to "a view to a kill" in 1985, and that got us thinking, everyone generationally has their own bond, james bond, who you think of as 007 probably depends on how old you are. trust me, we went there at our staff meeting today. sean connery was the original bond in the '60s and '70s. so if you're older than 50, connery's probably your man.

david anybonibbe and george lar did one each. and if you're in your early' 40s, moore's your bond. generation x lost its bond. it always seemed that moore was the rodney dangerfield of bonds. he didn't get any respect. he had the misfortune of being like larry holmes, the heavyweight boxing champ forgotten between muhammad ali and mike tyson, and yet has all the records. moore was crowded on both sides by connery before him and pierce brosnan after him. james bond can defeat anyone, except, perhaps, another james bond. but like holmes, moore was a great champ. just ask his bond girls. solitary, mary goodnight, major anya amasova, holly, and the character played by maude adams, whose character's name is not appropriate for family television. so let's give gen x's bond his due today. he sure knew how to wear a tux

and capture a bad guy at the same time. back in a moment. until then, i remain todd, chuck todd. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced, our senses awake, our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, but they say: if you love sometng... set it free. see you around, giulia ♪ manait's a series of is nsmart choices. and when you replace one meal or snack a day with glucerna made with carbsteady to help minimize blood sugar spikes you can really feel it. glucerna. everyday progress.

tech: when your windshield trust safelite autoglass.. our exclusive trueseal technology means a strong, reliable bond. at safelite, we stand behind our work... because the ones you love, sit behind it. (parents whisper jingle) safelite repair, safelite replace. oscar mawe went back toig the drawing board... and the cutting board. we removed the added nitrates and nitrites, by-products, and artificial preservatives in all of our meat. every. single. one.

why? for the love of hot dogs. save medicare, medicaid and social security without cuts. have to do it. >> i will do everything witn my power not to touch social security, to leave it the way it is. it's my absolute intention to leave social security the way it is, not increase the age and to leave it as-is. >> those campaign promises some are saying are not matching up with trump's first budget proposal which takes aim at those programs. first of all, sarah, i'll start with you. this is in the first time in the modern era since presidents introduced their budgets that it was introduced with the president out of the country. this doesn't seem like an administration interested in selling this budget. >> i don't know if that's the case or if it was planned or the

way it worked out on the schedule. but it really felt to me like a budget that had director mulvaney's stamp on it. >> and not president trump's? >> much more than donald trump's. >> when the cat is away, the mice shall play, right? >> mark murray said, susan, it's like -- the rnc statement is, like who is running the rnc? donald trump or paul ryan? >> this budget is an orphan. you know what striked me is not that he violated some of his caaign promises, he laid out votes that hurt his own voters, people who rely on food stamps, who rely on medicaid. the biggest budget cut is medicaid. >> even mitch mcconnell said, well, it's a recommendation,

which, by the way, mcconnell would say about any budget. >> i was on capitol hill today and they said it was dead on arrival. that's when it was first tri trickling in. for the very first time, you see bipartisan support for something -- >> it's standard practice for congress to say president's budgets are dead. >> they can't use budget reconciliation to do the tax plan, then. >> that's why paul ryan wanted it. >> he was enthusiastic. while some of these programs clearly will stay in place and should stay in place, directionally, it is where the republican party wants to go. it's not that the party wants to cut medicaid but the party wants to see -- >> i agree with you, this feels like the club for growth wing of the party. the populist donald trump wing

is in a different place. that's the part of the budget that a lot of us are -- >> i don't entirely agree with that. certainly i agree with you it's moreulvaney and club for growth than traditional republican but the republican party would like to balance the budget. they would like to see spending cuts and they would actually like to go broader than where donald trump is going relative to social security and medicare and so directionally i think there's something that they can work with something else. >> one of the thing they highlighted was is that it's dead on arrival because the math doesn't added a up. this idea that there's actually going to be balance in ten years doesn't make sense. >> he's not out there selling his own budget today. that matters. >> oh, yeah. he's not in the country. could he have gone farther away when his budget came out? he's not doing the type of stumping that other presidents have done for their budget.

>> there's usually one pet issue that they go out and sell it. >> that's right. >> we're going to have to leave it there. the budget normally would have gotten a lot more attention. so much going on. thank you all. after the break, a look at some swamp monsters. time's up, insufficient we're on prenatal care.es. and administrative paperwork... your days of drowning people are numbered. same goes for you, budget overruns. and rising costs,

wipe that smile off your face. we're coming for you, too. for those who won't rest until the world is healthier, neither will we. optum. how well gets done. bp engineered a fleet of 32 brand new ships with advanced technology, so we can make sure oil and gas get where they need to go safely. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.

who's the new guy? they call him the whisperer. the whisperer? why do they call him the whisperer? he talks to planes. he talks to planes. watch this. hey watson, what's avionics telling you? maintenance cords and performance data suggest replacing capacitor c4. not bad. what's with the coffee maker? sorry. we are not on speaking terms.

but we've got the get tdigital tools to help. what's with the coffee maker? now with xfinity's my account, you can figure things out easily, so you won't even have to call us. change your wifi password to something you can actually remember, instantly. add that premium channel, and watch the show everyone's talking about, tonight. and the bill you need to pay? do it in seconds. because we should fit into your life, not the other way around. go to xfinity.com/myaccount in case you missed it, candidate trump really wanted to drain the swamp. >> when we win tomorrow, we are going to drain the swamp.

drain the swamp. drain the swamp. drain the swamp. >> but in kwcase you missed it, president trump seems more like talking about it than conducting a consensus of the animals in the swamp. he's got an you wiuntold number working in his administration right now and the number is untold because the administration won't tell us. the white house is activelily blocking the efforts to find out the names of former lobbyists who have been granted waivers to work in the white house or other agencies. a watch ddog group is suing to t things in the up and up. we can't know unless we see the paperwork. transparency, transparency, transparency. if you think anybody is going to abide by the president's

five-year lobbying ban for people who decided to work in the administration and then leave, i've got some fine washington, d.c., swampland to sell you. that's all for now. "for the record with greta" starts right now. >> thanks, chuck. welcome back. >> thank you. the threat level in the uk has been raised to the highest level. critical critical level meaning british officials are worried an attack could be imminent. this is one day after the bombing in manchester. theresa may taking to national tv and making this announcement just moments ago. >> it has now been concluded, on the basis of today's investigations, that the threat level should be increased for the time being from severe to critical. this means that their assessment is not only that an attack remains highly likely but that a further attack may be