to be with you? >> who is the actor in ""the godfather"" rehearsing what he'll say to him when he meets luke abbracci? then they pledge loyalty to those who brought them there. >> you have time for heaping praise on me. i want to thank our panel. that does it for this hour. i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts now. katy tur is in for chuck todd. hi, katy. >> hi, nicolle. the president's attorney general agrees to go on the record in an open hearing of the senate intel investigation on russia. so did the president sign off on the public testimony? >> i think he's going to testify. we're aware of it and we'll go from there. plus, why two attorneys general are suing the president over his business ties. >> we know that foreign

governments are spending money there in order to curry favor with the president of the united states. >> we'll talk to one of the men behind the lawsuit. washington, d.c. ag carl racine. and later, chuck schumer spoofs today's roundtable of flattery at the white house. this is "mtp daily" and it starts right now. good evening. i'm katy tur in new york in for chuck todd. welcome to "mtp daily." it's been another manic monday for this white house. the secret service pours cold water on those trump tapes. the president is sued by two attorneys general, and an appeals court strikes another blow to the president's travel ban. but we begin tonight with the chain reaction from james comey's bombshell testimony.

in a surprise move, attorney general jeff sessions will testify tomorrow under oath publicly in front of the senate intelligence committee. sessions says he personally wants to respond to the former fbi director's allegations. it will be the attorney general's first public testimony since his confirmation hearing back in january, which means he's likely going to be grilled in a number of controversies embroiling him, the president and the department of justice. last week, for instance, comey testified that he had serious questions about the attorney general's role in his ouster. >> if, as the president said, i was fired because of the russia investigation, why was the attorney general involved in thatchn? i don't know. and so i don't have an answer for the question. >> sessions recused himself from any matter connected to trump's campaign, which does include the fbi's russia probe. but did his role in comey's firing violate that recusal? comey also testified that the fbi knew sessions would recuse

himself weeks before sessions actually announced it. >> we're aware of facts that i can't discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a russia-related investigation problematic. >> comey did not elaborate on those facts, but will sessions? there have also been reports that sessions offered to resign as tensions with mr. trump flared over his recusal. and comey testified that he spoke to sessions after the president urged him to drop the investigation into former national security adviser michael flynn, saying, i took the opportunity to implore the attorney general to prevent any future direct communication between the president and me. i told the ag that what had just happened, him being asked to leave while the fbi director, who reports to the ag, remain behind, was inappropriate and should never happen. he did not reply. sessions also faces major questions about undisclosed contacts with russians during

the campaign which contradicted his testimony during his confirmation process. >> i have been called a surrogate a time or two in that campaign and i did not have communications with the russians. >> white house press secretary sean spicer today would not say if president trump will try to restrict or block sessions' testimony by invoking executive privilege. but a spokesman for sessions said the attorney general is the one that requested that tomorrow's hearing be public in the first place. i'm joined by nbc news justice correspondent pete williams and nbc chief white house correspondent hallie jackson. halle hallie, laets staet's start wit. what is the white house's state of mind before sessions goes to the white house tomorrow? >> reporter: publicly it's what you heard from sean spicer at the podium today talking about how he believed it would be a little premature to start the discussion on executive privilege. that is typically one might see

prior to the actual testimony happening. part two, though, let's talk about how the response might come, or the prebuttal hearing. i was speaking with a source inside the republican party talking about what the strategy was going to be. i am told that doj will likely end upsetting the tone for a lot of the messaging that you will see, talking about what jeff sessions, the attorney general, did or did not do when it comes to the transition, when it comes to the last 144 days of this administration, and what surrounded tes firing of comey. also, though, wat for a lot of the messaging that we have seen over the last 72 hours. when it comes to the idea that there was no evidence of collusion or obstruction, the administration says, you're going to see that echoed from surrogates, you're going to see this full court press again tomorrow as allies of the president mobilize to work to defend him in this instance. it really is similar to what we saw towards the end of last week, although of course a different person in the hot seat. >> and hallie, sessions has been

pretty clear that he wants to testify, he wants to tell his story. list ton when to what he said i letter to congress. in light of reports regarding mr. comey's recent testimony before the senate select committee on intelligence, it is important that i have an opportunity to address these matters in the appropriate forum. how can the white house restrict his testimony? >> i don't know, katy. if that happens based on our reporting and based on what we heard publicly from the press secretary, it doesn't seem particularly likely, although we will see what happens tomorrow. i will say that the idea that jeff sessions, the attorney general, wants to get out and sort of speak the truth as the doj is talking about and as you quote from sessions' team himself there, you're hearing that from republicans on the hill as well. they're taking that, and that's one of the things i've heard throughout the day and in talk ingwith these folks, hey, if

jeff sessions wants to get up there and tell it like it is, more power to him. >> this idea of executive privilege, pete, what would that look like if the president decides to invoke it? after all, it is not jeff sessions' decision, it is the president's decision. >> reporter: it's his privilege because the idea here is that the president has the right to get unfiltered advice from his aides and he doesn't want to worry about what would happen if it became public. if the white house were to assert executive privilege on some specific thing, i assume the attorney general would say, i'm sorry, i can't answer that because of executive privilege. that's just a guess. >> what about this idea of recusal? jeff sessions dai-- there is a of talk about whether or not he violated his recusal when he got involved in the firing of james comey. walk us through that. what does it mean to violate your recusal? who would make the judgment that he did violate the recusal and what would the consequences be?

>> okay. so in order, i think the first point is the justice department has pushed back on this idea that somehow he violated his recusal by getting involved in the firing of comey. and the explanation the justice department has given is, look at the rod rosenstein memo which talked about mr. comey's performance in handling the hillary clinton e-mail issue, some of the controversial decisions he made there. that's the thing that sessions joined in concurrence on, and they say that mr. sessions, in saying that comey ought to be fired, was talking about his overall performance as the fbi director. now, set aside the fact that the president has given, at least in his interviews, a different explanation. mr. sessions is saying from his part that's why he was involved in the comey firing, because it was not just about russia, it was about the whole thing. >> so what are the consequences, though, if he did violate his recusal? and who would ultimately decide that?

>> i suppose that somebody could bring it before the justice department inspector general. i haven't been, myself, involved in the last 25 years i've covered the justice department with this question coming up. so i have to say i don't know what the answer is. i'm not sure who the right person is to bring it, how that would be worked out. perhaps the deputy attorney general or somebody else could make the call. that's normally how it works. recusals, remember, are not all that uncommon. almost every attorney general for some reason or another recuses either because of a past association with someone or a built-in political conflict and usually their deputy makes these important decisions, so perhaps the deputy would make the call. thas lo this is a long-winded way of saying i don't know. >> stumping pete williams on

this is an amazing thing. it does not repeat. >> this is a common thing. >> no, it isn't. 25 years of working and not coming upon this is a sign of the times we live in. pete, thank you. hallie jackson, thank you as well. worked in five terms as congress and republican strategist, and we have a reporter of the "new york times" and an msnbc contributor. gosh, stumping pete williams on something. that's tough stuff. >> "new york times" stumped on monday, pete wmore stumped on t. >> tomorrow we're going to see sessions go up and we're going to -- he's going to get peppered with a lot of questions. how likely is it that he is going to answer much, or is he just going to do what coats did

the other day, and rogers, saying, i'm not going to talk about my conversations with the president? >> it will be a combination of both. i think we'll see him do that. what's particularly interesting is he decided to do this in an open session, which i think was twofold. one was because we know if he wants to set up a political fight, him going in as a former colleague, he'll have the democrats coming after him. he'll be able to set this up as a fight, republican-democrat fight. and he can also do the fallback to a closed session if he doesn't want to answer questions at that point. but at least he gets it over with. >> the president is big on loyalty, we know that. harold, do you think the president asked jeff sessions at any point for his loyalty? >> i guess two weeks ago we learned, maybe a little less, that the stuff looks like it's rolling over each other, but apparently mr. sessions offered to resign. there are two questions.

one, when they were in the office together and the president asked everybody to leave but asked comey to stay, if i were sessions, i would want to correct that. we all know there were questions about russian contacts. blumenthal wanted to bring him back to ask these questions after he apparently didn't answer the question under oath or didn't understand the question under oath. when there are questions that are too sensitive, he's going to invoke privilege. but i think there are two or three questions he wants to answer. >> but he can try to invoke privileges. coats and rogers, there are questions whether they had legal basis to stand. it might not matter at that moment, but they're going to get called back before the house and the senate, according to lawmakers, and they're going to have to answer questions. >> this is also, i think, a testaments for president trump. if sessions does well here, trump has promised he's willing

to go before the committee under oath. if he goes under oath -- >> there is no lawyer that says that will happen. >> but he's indicated he would. let's say in the event that he does, this gifves him a semblane of how this would go. i think this is almost more interesting than comey because they're serving with an actual republican where comey served two administrations. i think you could get the sense this may take a little turn. >> what sort of questions do you think we'll get from republicans, nick? >> that's a good question. i think we will see questions about this third meeting or fourth meeting. >> actually, the mayflower hotel meeting. >> i think we'll see questions about his role in the comey firing. i do believe that it's absolutely a smart move for him to do this in a public session. it's not just being able to claim privilege. if he has a tough question, he

can fall back and say it's not appropriate for open session in the same way comey did. >> and there's no closed session right now. he has not agreed to a closed session. >> he can give the appearance of not avoiding questions in a way by saying it's too sensitive to discuss. if doem said it can be discussed in an open session, it's hard to demand that sessions answer those questions. >> maybe he'll do that with the conversations he had with the president or the conversations he had with the fbi director, but how can he not testify or be forthcoming about a potential third meeting he had with the russians? >> he must have a pretty good answer to this question because i think that will be the headline tomorrow. >> he can't win on that question unless he tells the truth. >> so what is the truth? >> we'll find out. but what i want to know is, we know that director comey wrote those memos on an fbi computer. i want to know if the fbi collected those memos and if mr. sessions has seen those memos,

if he shared those memos with the president. and more importantly, did he go to senior staff who was mentioned in those memos to get their account of what happened? that's the big question. >> the other thing, newt gingrich. this calls into question how much longer the mueller investigation is going to go on and whether or not the white house might try to fire him. that conversation is starting to bubble up right now. take a look at what newt gingrich said on facebook live today. >> i think that what republicans ought to focus on is closing down the independent counsel, because he's not independent. he apparently is very close to comey. we know comey hates trump. you have to assume that has to leak over to more. and you have to assume that the people mueller is going to bring in are essentially justice department people who are 33-1 in favor of clinton over trump. this clearly cannot be an honest, independent investigation. >> he also did a tweet out to that effect, but in direct

conflict with the tweet he sent out about three weeks ago where he said robert mueller is a superb choice to be counsel, his reputation is one of integrity, the media should calm down. does he not know we can see his tweets? >> i don't think it was about mueller. he realized all of a sudden the president is going to get into a really tricky jam and that's why he's pushing this. >> so newt gingrich is just a patsy for the president? >> well, i think he likes to be a strong supporter, let's put it that way. >> this president could find himself escaping all the legal challenges with some of these big issues, but his constant tweeting and talking could land him in something different. to your point, i think that's what the speaker gingrich might have been talking about. >> we have that sound bite. take a listen. >> here's what's so frustrating for republicans like me. you may be the first president in history to go down because

you can't stop inappropriately talking about an investigation, that if you just were quiet, would clear you. it's frustrating for me to want to help a man who i think will do big things no other republican would do, like immigration. >> harold, susan, nick, stay with us. coming up, the secret service weighs in on the tale of the tapes. a new lawsuit puts the spotlight back on president trump's complicated ties to his business empire. i'll have one of the attorneys general who filed the suit, ahead. e i knew it, and as he grew ♪ ♪ he'd say i'm gonna be like you, dad ♪ ♪ you know i'm gonna be like you ♪ ♪ and the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon ♪ ♪ little boy blue and the man in the moon... ♪ ♪ art. it can be sculpted, bringing to life beautiful detail.

or painted in luxurious strokes. and in rare cases... both. ♪

>> look, i've seen the tweet about tapes, lordy, i hope there are tapes. >> do tapes exist of your conversations? >> i'll tell you about that maybe someday in the near future. >> president trump continues to play coy about the suggestion that tapes exist about his

conversations. secretary sean spicer said any announcement regarding tapes would come, quote, when the president is ready to make it. but this afternoon the wall street journal provided some new insight as to whether or not any tapes do, in fact, exist. the u.s. secret service told the paper that they do not have audio or transcripts of any tapes from the white house on january 20th. but the article points out that the secret service information does not exclude the possibility that recordings could have been created by another entity. nbc news has since confirmed the story. "mtp daily" in just 60 seconds.

welcome back to "mtp daily." today president trump is facing yet another legal challenge. the state attorneys general from maryland and washington, d.c. are suing the president in part over foreign government payments at trump hotels. they argue that because

president trump did not divest from his business interests, he's rolling over the emollients clause. the president responded to a different lawsuit regarding the watchdog group crew who is also providing legal information for this case. the 72-page brief points to a lack of previous emollients cases, reaching all the way back to george washington and his farm produce sales, as an example. joining me now for his first solo national interview since the suit was filed, district columbia attorney general carl racine. attorney general, thank you for joining us, first off. >> thank you, katy. >> the district of columbia and maryland are being affected by this violation of the emollients clause. how can you confirm that? >> sure. we both assert two different bases for the argument that d.c. and maryland residents are

negatively impacted by donald trump's constitutional violations. the first is, as attorney general, our jobs are to protect our residents. our residents, of course, are protected by the same protections everyone has in this country related to the constitution. as you outlined at the beginning, president trump is flagrantly violating the emollients clause by allowing other businesses to do business with his businesses as the rnc. the second standing is the negative impact the trump hotel is having on both d.c. businesses as well as certain businesses in maryland. put simply, the businesses in d.c. and maryland that compete with the trump business are not competing on a level playing field. >> do you have any concrete examples of that? >> there are concrete examples, and indeed, we're relying a lot

on the fantastic press reports. we know, for example, that a foreign nation had long scheduled a major event at a d.c. hotel only to cancel that event and move it over to the trump hotel. >> are you talking about the embassy of kuwait cancelling on the four seasons? >> that is correct. as the reports indicate, the kuwaiti government had long done business with the four seasons, and, of course, as you can see, lig living in d.c., the trump hotel is a bastien for foreign governments now. diplomats populate that hotel every single day, and we know exactly why they're there. they're there in order to conduct business with the president of the united states in order to have some level of influence with policies that impact their foreign governments. >> how do you prove that, though? would there not be a paper trail that there is some influence being had over the president's

decision making in terms of overseas policy? >> let me be clear. we don't have to establish a quid pro quo in order to prevail. it's enough that the constitution, through its emollients clause, the clause that we view as the country's first anti-corruption law had a blanket rule. it said no federal officer, including the president, shall have a business where foreign governments are providing it with money or other benefits, unless congress grants an exemption. and we know that the republican congress has not yet granted such an exemption. >> do you need to see the president's tax returns in order to understand the full scope of this? >> i think it's important for us to see all kinds of information about the president's businesses throughout the world. right now -- >> if you're allowed to proceed, will you try to get those tax returns? >> there is no doubt that we'll proceed and try to get all the records that relate to the

president's businesses, and we do believe that the president's tax returns could be relevant. >> what about his family members? >> right now we're focused on president trump. he is the federal office holder. else the person who is the president of the united states, and he's the individual who has sought fit to allow his business to receive moneys from foreign governments. >> what would the tax returns show, and would you not need to see 2017 tax returns over any past returns? >> well, i think the fact that prior foreign entanglements would be relevant to the question of whether those entanglements continue. for example, loans to certain foreign banks or foreign entities would be relevant. business partnerships with certain foreign banks and foreign entities would be relevant. a whole swath of documentation that would reveal the full nature of trump's businesses. >> the white house is saying this is a purely political move. did you guys attempt to get any republican ags on board with

this? >> no, we did not. brian frosh and i focused on our own backyard, and that's the trump hotel. we welcome republican attorney jenz attorneys general to look at the lawsuit and provide a level of support. we won't get that support. >> why not? >> as you know, we live in a highly partisan environment where the checks and balances will collide. the second check and balance would be congress asserting its rights to acquire the president to divest his businesses. what we're doing is invoking the check and balance. we have the case right where it should be, in the federal court, and the federal court will decide as to whether the constitution has been violated.

>> attorney general carl racine, thank you very much for your time, sir. >> thank you, katy. a very unusual roundtable of flattery at the white house. i hope you saw this. plus, is the path of most resistance a good strategy for the government to take back control of congress? keep it right here. 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 ♪ about to see progressive's new home quote explorer. where you can compare multiple quote options online and choose what's right for you. woah. flo and jamie here to see hqx. flo and jamie request entry.

slovakia. triceratops. tapioca. racquetball. staccato. me llamo jamie. pumpernickel. pudding. employee: hey, guys! home quote explorer. it's home insurance made easy. password was "hey guys." it's home insurance made easy. (woman) there's a moment of truth.etes, and now with victoza®, a better moment of proof. victoza® lowers my a1c and blood sugar better than the leading branded pill, which didn't get me to my goal. lowers my a1c better than the leading branded injectable. the one i used to take. victoza® lowers blood sugar in three ways. and while it isn't for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. non-insulin victoza® comes in a pen and is taken once a day. (announcer) victoza® is not recommended as the first medication to treat diabetes and is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history

of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or if you develop any allergic symptoms including itching, rash, or difficulty breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis, so stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. the most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. now's the time for a better moment of proof. ask your doctor about victoza®.

it has been just over a week

that the president injected covfefe into his tweet. he deleted the covfefe tweet but invited us to figure out the true meaning of the word. that has become an interpretation that could become legal. they introduced the communication over various feeds electronically for engagement act. that is covfefe, of course, for short. should it become law, tweets could become official presidential records and, therefore, illegal to delete. we discuss the strategy for potential democrats. but first, hampton pearson has the stock report. hello, hampton. >> the dow losing 36 points, the s&p down by two. the nasdaq falling 32 points.

apple fell 2.5% following news the company will use slower modems in upcoming iphones compared with the competition. general electric rose 3.6%. the ceo will be replaced by john flannery, currently of ge hea h healthcar healthcare. the first in business worldwide. tech: when you schedule with safelite autoglass,

you get a text when we're on our way. you can see exactly when we'll arrive. i'm micah with safelite. customer: thanks for coming, it's right over here. tech: giving you a few more minutes for what matters most. take care. kids singing: safelite® repair, safelite® replace. when i feel controlled by frequent, unpredictable abdominal pain or discomfort and diarrhea. i tried lifestyle changes and over-the-counter treatments, but my symptoms keep coming back. it turns out i have irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea, or ibs-d. a condition that's really frustrating. that's why i talked to my doctor about viberzi... ...a different way to treat ibs-d. viberzi is a prescription medication you take every day that helps proactively manage both abdominal pain and diarrhea at the same time. so i can stay ahead of my symptoms. viberzi can cause new or worsening abdominal pain. do not take viberzi if you have no gallbladder, have pancreas or severe liver problems, problems with alcohol abuse,

long-lasting or severe constipation, or a bowel or gallbladder blockage. ncreatitis may occur and can lead to hospitalization and death. if you are taking viberzi, you should not take medicines that cause constipation. the most common side effects of viberzi include constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain. stay ahead of ibs-d with viberzi.

welcome back. the big challenge for democrats on the hill these days is what approach they want to take with the republican majority in both chambers. and donald trump in the white house. how much should their strategy be built on resistance? recently chuck todd sat down with republican chairperson rosa delauro. she is also the author of "waging the battle."

chuck also asked her to take a read on the action on capitol hill. >> well, i don't think it's ever been worse. i have been there for 26 years. i've been through newt gingrich and the tea party. i think what's worse about it at the moment is the inability to move forward and to get things done. and i think the country is counting on us to addressing the real problems, which are economic problems. >> what message did you take away from the election? i know for some it's hard to separate the russia investigation from the election, but let's take the election results at face value. you're a prerogative, in some ways economically, while very supportive of hillary clinton, you do part ways on some things. what lessons do you take on where the democratic party should head? >> it's where we should go as a

congress. i speak as a democrat. the single biggest issue we face today is people are in jobs that don't pay them enough. they're struggling. it is very, very tough out there. so what they are looking for, and they haven't found in looking toward washington, that they see any hope in sight for their future and the vision for their future. i think that's the direction that we need to go. you have to understand what people's lives are about these days, and they're trying to put food on the table, they're trying to get their kids to school. they don't think about retiring anymore. and the whole economic -- their whole economic structure has collapsed for so many in this country. >> going through your book "the least among us" in many ways is a progressive manifesto. you go in here in defense of the hungry, in defense of fair trade. it sounds like what you just

said is one issue is that people are in jobs that don't pay enough. it seems like your prescription is, okay, if this is the future of work, and you wish people paid more, but if it is, our job in government is to provide an extra safety net so they don't ha to pay extra money on whether it's child care, whether it's health care. is that your prescription, is that fair? >> my prescription is what has been the prescription historically in the united states. the social safety net began after the civil war with pensions for veterans. you fast-forward and then we look at social security, medicare, medicaid. you've got lyndon johnson with unemployment insurance and welfare. you move them to today where you're looking at unemployment benefits, food stamps, income support for child tax credits, and hopefully someday we'll look at the health care. but that is the social safety net which in the past has been

supported by democrats and republicans. >> i hear you making that point, yes, but we've had an idealogical divide on this question for many decades, which is role of government. how much, how less? a conservative government libertarian conservative would say you're expanding government all over the place, and they would say once you give somebody these benefits, they'll never get off of it. what do you say to that? >> i would say they really have no idea of what the reality is. in terms of the idealogical spectrum, george mcgovern, bob dole, they are in hunger. they crossed this country and said, we have a problem. hunger in the united states, i talk about this in the book. and they came to a conclusion. you have had democrats and

republicans on income support and child tax credits coming together. every republican president has said, and now recently, when people are out of a job, let's allow them to get unemployment benefits. >> i'm always curious of this question for any member of congress, because i think this has changed. let's say this piece of legislation you're just totally opposed to, you know it's going to pass, and you're concerned it's going to pass, and you think you have an opportunity to fix one part of it. it's going to pass, but in order to fix that one part, what's your line of helping legislation you think is bad improve a little bit versus saying, you know what? republicans, you own it. i would rather run against you. what's your lineup? >> my philosophy is i try to -- again, described in the book.

i worked to the very end to make the change that i believed ought to be made. i don't throw in the towel. if i ultimately can't get there, i will try to improve it, i will try to make it better, and if i can't do that ultimately, then sometimes you're faced with bad options and you have to vote for something. there are times, quite frankly, i did this with the farm bill. when you cut $20 billion in food stamps for the people of this country, you know, there are good things in there for the environment, good things for other parts of the country -- >> you voted against it for that reason. >> i voted against it for that reason because it was wrong to deny food to people of this country. the story is in the book. still ahead, a democratic battle in virginia's rice for governor. we'll preview tomorrow's primary, next. and later, the best compliment you could give the president.

with a lobster tail with butter and herbs, sweet, smoky bbq red shrimp, and shrimp crusted with...get this...cape cod kettle chips. or try lobster and shrimp overboard. a dish this good... makes you this hungry. it's the highlight of the season, and can't last. so hurry in. he's told that joke a million times. and you always laugh like you're hearing it for the first time. at lincoln financial, we get there are some responsibilities of love you gotta do on your own. and some you shouldn't have to shoulder alone. like ensuring he's well-taken care of. even as you build your own plans for retirement. ask a financial advisor how lincoln can help protect your savings from the impact of long-term care expenses.

governor ralph northam and former diplomat tom perriello have been racing around the state in the final hours making a last pitch in a primary that has largely turned into a

contest to criticize president trump. polls have indicated they're neck and neck. it's also created a juxtaposition of national progressive stars versus state democrats where perriello boasts support from sanders and elizabeth warren and john podesta, while northam has been campaigning with three democratic statewide office holders, governor terry mcauliffe, tim kane and mark warner. rnc chair ed gillespie is the frontrunner facing prince county corey stewart and frank wagner. whoever wins the primary tomorrow will have to face the dynamics in a state that is slowly turning increasingly blue. hillary clinton defeated donald trump there by more than five points in november. next, we'll dig into the

elections coming up and their possible implications. i know a bunch of people who would love that. the internet loves what you're doing... ...so build a better website in under an hour with... ...gocentral from godaddy. type in your idea. select from designs tailored just for you and publish your site with just a few clicks-even from your... ...mobile phone. the internet is waiting start for free today at godaddy.

dental professionals recommend using an electric toothbrush. for an exceptionally fresh feeling choose philips sonicare diamondclean. hear the difference versus oral b. in a recently published clinical study, philips sonicare diamondclean outperforms oral-b 7000, removing up to 82% more plaque and improving gum health up to 70% more. its sonic technology cleaning deep between teeth. from the most recommended sonic toothbrush brand by dental professionals. switch to philips sonicare today. philips sonicare. save when you buy now.

our panel is back. i'd like to start going around the table and if you can give me a compliment, i would appreciate it. i'm kidding, i'm kidding, i'm kidding. we're jumping a segment, we're going to get to that in a moment. please don't do that, it's so awkward. let's start with the travel ban. breaking news earlier today. the ninth circuit court of appeals upheld the stay on the ban and now it will go to the supreme court. another blow to the president. they use the president's own tweets against him, and sean spicer saying the president's tweets are official statements. >> george conway was right. the president should listen more closely to those around him about the tweets and now it could endanger his very first act and the thing eghe said fro the outset was urgent to get

done, it had to be done. we're now past 100 days. thank god we haven't had an attack on the nation. >> it's also reporting that extreme vetting is the same as the vetting was during the obama administration. >> it's all the same vetting, and the problem is the previous administration was, in fact, vetting people who were coming in as refugees. in fact, if you were coming in on that program -- >> two years? >> it was among the tightest vetting when anyone gets when they want to come into the country. once again they are sort of captive to the exaggeration they endulged in in the first place place, and now they can't put in policy because there is some on some levels. twitter is a medium. it is the president's most powerful weapon, but you can also shoot yourself in the foot with a shotgun any time when you're done. >> it's a double-edged sword. >> sure, pick your metaphor, but he is able to use this

mouthpiece against himself. >> repeatedly, and multiple subjects he could benefit from -- >> and not learn from it. you would think given the ruling today that he would learn not to comment on twitter about the ongoing investigation, and he t to comment on twitter. >> his words were brought up in lawsuits left and right. in the trump university lawsuit he told me he had the world's greatest memory regarding 9/11. and that was brought up and he said i don't remember saying that. his statements come up to haunt him. let's talk about state races. the primary battle in virginia, both of them are trying to see who can outtop the other to outcriticize the president. what does that say to you, nick? >> it says one of the few paths for democrats is to attack the president. i think there's downside or danger to that.

i think the democratic party has a lot to figure out. they are indulging themselves in the belief they can ride the president's unpopularity back to power. >> which is what hillary clinton did that didn't work. >> interesting on the republican side they're going with a traditional republican operator like ed gillespie. it shows we are living 2016 over again. >> fred bruney wrote about the challenges we're facing, reassert what our values are and when it comes to issues your position on issues will be defined that way. we have to be a big tent party and about addition. a lot of times when you lose as we have you get real narrow and begin to think you need a strict test for a, b, c and issues. the country will put us back in power if we have a strong

economic issue. but you only win if you add more people to the ledger? what about in virginia with perriello and thort ham. you have the pgressive and national leaders. northam. is it like a fracture with the freedom caucus being very extreme and riding the tea party wave versus more moderate republicans? >> there is. as nick said, the real uniter for democrats is people dislike trump. if we want an intramural fight about whether it's progressive economic message, winner or worn message -- warren message, elizabeth warren or other politician, at the end of the day, it's people against trump. a lot of people didn't vote or were such sanders supporters because they couldn't vote for secretary clinton. >> you see that momentum

carrying through, we saw in early special elections in march. >> we have the georgia election coming up soon and healthcare seems to be an issue popping up. you have 1 in 4 of americans, only 1 in 4 approve of the gop plan. then you have the atlanta journal constitution saying 81% of voters out there in georgia say that healthcare is extremely important or a very important priority. so should osoff just be running on healthcare alone? he isn't bringing trump up that much. >> he is winning this is a seat by 20 points maybe by 12 in a tough situation. it is definitely a referendum maybe not on trump himself but certainly the policies coming up. let's not forget this is also a

little more upscale higher educated district in georgia. i think that you're dealing with people who really see the implications of policy. >> handle pulls it off, bad, disastrous, not so bad for the democrats? quickly. >> it's bad for them, not disastrous. it's hard to read anything into the one races. i think if she pulls it out it shows you can't depend on a wave of trump revulsion to give seats back to you, fight for them and win them on the merits. >> ossof has got one. >> i will say good-bye to you. i appreciate it. after the break we've been teasing it all hour, some not so secret admirers at the white house. you've got to see this.

dearthere's no other way to say this. it's over. 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 something set it free. see you around, giulia

finally in case you missed it, we teased this earlier, flattery will get you everywhere. did you see this? president trump started off with remarkable remarks about this is administration's milestones. what resulted was a full on flattery fest. check this out. >> then your position of them -- we'll ask these folks to go back and have a good day and we will discuss our various reports. >> the greatest privilege of my life to serve as vice president to a president who's keeping his word to the american people. >> i can't thank you enough for

the privilege you have given me and leadership you have shown. >> i want to thank you for getting this country moving again. >> on behalf of the entire senior staff around you, mr. president, we thank you for the opportunity and the blessing that you've given us to serve your agenda and the american people. >> the fawning caught senator schumer's attention. the minority leader had a little bit of fun during his own meeting with staff members. >> i want to thank everybody for coming. i just thought we'd go around the room. lucy, how did we do on the sunday show yesterday? >> your tone was perfect. right on message. >> michelle, how did my hair look coming out of the gym this morning? >> you have great hair. >> before we go this morning thank you for the opportunity and blessing to serve your agenda. [ laughter ] >> hopefully the president isn't rubbed the wrong way by the light trolling from the senator, after all, imitation is the

seriousest form of flattery. in fact, that's how i'm going to be starting off all of my show meetings from now on, word to the wise, back in the control room, if you want to catch me, you can always find me on twitter, katy tur on nbc. chuck will be back in the chair tomorrow with more daily. greta, do you like that idea starting off with a flattery fest? >> yes. but i was going to talk about the "new york times" article about you. the senator leahy is with me and said he liked it. >> thank you. a top democratic senator is accusing sessions of running away from him. that senator joins us live in just minutes. we begin with the white house getting blitz from all sides. federal judges once again telling president trump he has it all wrong ruling against the president's controversial travel ban.