this sunday, trump, putin and russian election interference. rex tillerson says president trump pressed vladimir putin on russian hacking but that it's now in the past. >> let's talk about how we go forward. >> reporter: the russians said trump accepted putin's denial. so was it president trump or putin who got what he wanted out of their first meeting? my guests this morning, former cia director john brennan and senator lindsey graham. >> an alarming development with north korea.

a missile capable of hitting the u.s. >> do they have any intention of stopping their nuclear program? is there any indication they will repeal and replace obamacare? >> i don't think we expected him to win, so we didn't expect to be in this situation. >> can the repeal and replace plan be saved? plus, are they a polarized society or are they part of the problem? i'll ask tom perez and republican ronna mcdaniel in their first "meet the press" appearance. nbc correspondent kristen welker, ed lowry, author of "the national review." welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> announcer: the longest running show in television history celebrating its 70th

year. this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. friday's meeting between president trump and vladimir putin took place behind closed doors which is for the people present, including two translators. the question is how much did trump press vladimir putin on hacking russian elections? mr. lavrov and later mr. putin has done little to erase doubts about mr. trump's eagerness to pursue the issue, neither that they requested sanctions on putin's denial and instead insisted it's time to move on. president trump tweeted, i strongly pressed president putin twice about russian meddling in our election. he vehemently denied it. i've already given my opinion. we negotiated and now it's time to work with russia.

it is president trump's ambiguous relationship with america's chief adversary that has captured so much attention. >> mr. president, did the russians lie to you on saturday? >> reporter: they finally meet face to face with the russian president who orchestrated a series of cyber attacks to interfere with the u.s. election and boost trump's campaign. instead of hostility, the sit-down began with putin who kills an imprisoned journalist, saying, these are the ones who insulted you? >> there was a very clear positive chemistry between the two. >> because the meeting took place behind closed doors without a single putin skeptic on the american side, we may never know to what degree mr. trump pressed putin on russian interference in the election. u.s. intelligence agencies concluded nine months ago with high confidence that russia interfered. secretary of state rex tillerson argued the president pressed putin on more than one occasion. but he also made it clear that

mr. trump was eager to put election meddling in the rearview mirror. >> there was not a lot of re-litigating of the past. >> reporter: but putin himself said president trump accepted his assurances that russia was not involved. >> translator: he asked me questions, i answered, i clarified, and i think that he was satisfied with my answers. >> the fact that he didn't lay out an explicit deterrent calculus that says, russia, this is what we know that you did, this is the evidence that you did it, and by the way, this will be publicly reported because i, the president of the united states, have order touchdown to be publicly reported, and here are the consequences for it. we have not heard that he did that. >> in fact, tillerson said they will form a working group on russian interference. the intelligence committee said that's akin to inviting the russians to nonproliferation. prior to the meeting, mr. trump questioned if russia was even behind the attacks on the united states.

>> i think it was russia, but i think it was probably other people and/or countries, and i see nothing wrong with that statement. nobody really knows. >> and he attacked his own intelligence community on foreign soil. >> everybody was 100% sure that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. guess what? that led to one big mess. >> joining me now is the former head of the cia, john brennan. mr. brennan, welcome back to "meet the press." >> good morning, chuck. thanks for having me on. >> the president said a few other things specifically about the intel committee. he tweeted, putin and i discussed forming a cyber security unit so that election hacking and many other negative things will be guarded. why did obama do nothing when he had info before the election? all right.

there is a lot to unpack in here. but let's start with, do you interpret this as president trump taking the word of vladimir putin over the word of the america's intelligence community? >> it certainly indicates he doesn't take the word of the intelligence community, and that's what he's been doing repeatedly in terms of his republican conference. in warsaw he continued to question the intelligence community's confidence that russia interfered in the election. he also raised kwequestions abo the intelligence of the intelligence community. therefore, i question whether mr. putin heard what he needed to from mr. trump about their assault on our election. >> you seem particularly upset about him questioning the intelligence community on foreign soil. what's wrong? he brought up the iraq issue. what's wrong with him showing public skepticism? >> i don't think he demonstrates good negotiating skills when it comes to mr. putin.

two days ago in warsaw, he gave mr. putin the opportunity to point to the failures of u.s. intelligence. to me i think he seeded that ground. and also right before he met with mr. putin and talked with him at some length, which i'm glad he did, he said it's an honor to meet president putin. an honor to meet the individual who carried out the assault against our election? to me it was a dishonorable thing to say. >> let me unpack something else he said in here, too. he said questions mp askabout w cia had to ask new questions. that's new about the cia. >> it's new to me, too. we have no domestic intelligence authorities. that's what the fbi does. mr. trump has pointed to the cia asking the dnc and mr. podesta. that is absolutely wrong. >> one of the things you said in your hearing, and i want to go into this, is you made a comment about treason. let me play it here and get you explain it further on the other side. >> frequently individuals who go

along that treasonous path do not even realize they're on that path until it gets to be a bit too late. >> with so many stories about various meetings with russia, there's a new one this morning -- and i think the trump campaign responds essentially they didn't know this russian lawyer's background with the kremlin, that it was unwitting. is that what you're referring to? was it meetings like that with the information your folks collected at the cia that raised your suspicions? >> iç will give the russian intelligence services their due. they will do whatever they can to be able to get information that they need in their view for their national security. so they'll interact with people, and frequently play people, and a lot of times individuals who are interacting with russians, not even russians, others that the russian intelligence services are using, are being exploited for russian intelligence purposes. so, again, the process of

committing treason against one's country frequently takes place in an unwitting fashion in the early stages. >> what role do you believe the intelligence community should play when you first see it? if you see that there is somebody that could be compromised and they don't know it, do you go and warn these folks? do you say, hey, be careful with this relationship? or do you -- what is that line there? isn't there a point where you want to warn an american, hey, don't do business with them? >> there are a lot of unique circumstances that will determine how we proceed. if we believe that the russians are seeking to exploit an individual, we will work with the fbi, making sure the fbi is aware of this. there may be other parts of this puzzle that we're unaware of, so we have an obligation, because of our very important counterintelligence responsibilities, to make sure the fbi is informed about all of these possibly suspicious counterintelligence concerns that we have. >> when you were collecting this data at the time, and you were raising alarm bells, we now

know, back in, i believe it's june now of 2016, a little bit before the fbi was told. why is it in hindsight it seem that it took awhile for the rest of the intelligence community to come around to your assessment? >> we were working very closely with the fbi as well as with nsa. as you can understand, there is some very sensitive sources and methods involved. so we had to be particularly careful about how we handled this information, who we talked to. i went down and spoke to the officials at the white house and the president about it, i spoke to jim comey as well. so what we need to do is make sure as an ongoing investigation is moving forward, we don't want to do anything at all that could compromise the ability of the bureau as well as cia and the rest of the intelligence community to collect additional information. so it has to be handled very carefully. >> when it was finally exposed and you met with folks and there was a debate about what to do, obviously there's been a

tick-tock and one of the infamous quotes out there in the washington tick-tock in what happened in the obama term. this is what one obama official said. it is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend, said a former senior in russia. i think we sort of choked. the idea is nothing was done before the election, and there are complaints nothing was done after the election. did he choke? >> that was a very brave comment by an anonymous source. they should be willing to say that on the record, first of all. no, i don't believe the obama administration choked. i think we can look at the actions that were taken prior to the election and after the election. i confronted my main russian counterpart on august 4th and told him, if you go down this road, it's going to have serious consequences not only for the bilateral relationship but for our ability to work with russia on any issue because it is an assault on our democracy. and president obama confronted president putin in september.

jim clapper and jeh johnson announced publicly about russian efforts. after we did that, i wonder whether or not the russians then took a step back and said, wait a minute now. we're not going to be as aggressive as we may have been otherwise. >> did you see evidence of that? >> i didn't see evidence that they continued to do some of the things we were concerned about, such as manipulating election tallies and other types of things. they were mapping the architecture of a lot of the state systems, so they could have done more. they didn't do more. i don't know if things we did vis-a-vis the russians had an impact on them in terms of not pursuing it. >> let me ask about the issue of leaks. obviously the trump administration believes the leak issue is tantamount to this, that the leaks are unfair. number one, there's been some studies that there are more leaks coming out of this white house, this national security team than we've ever seen before. but some of it, according to the trump administration, is coming from career folks. some of it they blame you for

some of these leaks. first of all, how damaging are these leaks? >> there's two different types of leaks. one is revealing very sensitive, classified information. they are appalling. they need to stop, they need to be investigated and people need to be held to account. then there are also leaks about conversations and internal white house intrigue. that is something i think the white house is going to have to get control of. but clearly, as you point out, i think there is a lot that is hemorrhaging out of this administration. >> is there information that is currently classified about this investigation that you think should be put into the public record that isn't yet? >> i am deferring to bob mueller who has impeccable credentials as far as doing this investigation in the best way possible, to determine exactly how the information related to this investigation should be coming out publicly. any ongoing investigation, the bureau and other investigators are going to be very careful about exposing information. >> you talked about bob mueller.

have you been interviewed by him yet? >> no, i haven't. >> are you going to be? has it been scheduled? >> i don't know. i haven't been contacted. >> john brennan, thank you for your time. coming up, senator lindsey gram of south carolina. welcome back to the show, sir. >> good morning. >> let me start with russia and the president and this cyber security statement he put out there. he wants to work with vladimir putin, claiming that this cyber security unit will prevent future election hacking and many other negative things will be guarded. what say you, sir? >> it's not the dumbest idea i've ever heard but it's pretty close. he gave a really good speech in poland, president trump did, and he had what i think is a disastrous meeting with president putin. two hours and 15 minutes of meetings, tillerson and trump are ready to forgive and forget when it comes to cyber attacks on the american election of 2016.

nobody is saying, mr. president, the russians changed the outcome. you won fair and square, but they did try to attack our election system. they were successful in many ways. and the more you do this, the more people are suspicious about you and russia. he's got a great national security team around him. he's doing a good job in afghanistan, north korea and isil, but when it comes to russia, he's got a blind spot, and to forgive and forget when it comes to putin regarding cyber attacks is to empower putin, and that's exactly what he's doing. >> here we are, though. you have said similar things before. other republicans have said similar things before that he only invokes more suspicion. what he did this morning, is he putting more faith in putin's word than in the word of the american intel community? >> i wouldn't look at it that way. he seems to be willing to forgive and forget putin. even if he brought it up, he's not willing to do anything about it, so it makes me more committed than ever to get sanctions on president trump's desk punishing putin.

there is only one person in washington that i know of that has any doubt about what russia did in our election, and that's president trump. and i hate that because i really like what he's doing regarding north korea, putting them on notice about no missile will ever be used to hit america. i like what he's doing in afghanistan. he took on assad, he's got a good plan regarding isil. but when it comes to russia, i am dumbfounded, i am disappointed, and at the end of the day he's hurting his presidency by not embracing the fact that putin is a bad guy who tried to undercut our democracy and he's doing it all over the world. >> one of the things the president said is that sanctions did not come up and it wouldn't come up until ukraine and syria problems are solved. how do you take that tweet? do you take that as a positive sign, that he doesn't want to lift sanctions, or do you take that as a negative sign that he doesn't want to put new ones on? >> i take it as a positive sign that he doesn't want to lift sanctions against russia for

dismembering ukraine. i take all the other tweets as a blind spot about russia. he needs to sit down with his fbi director, his cia director, the nsa and the dni, all the people he's appointed, and they'll tell him russia did it and they're still involved in our election process. i'm worried about what they'll do in january and in 2018. he's the only one that knows russia attacked our election system in 2016. the way he talks about this, about not being sure, the more he throws our intelligence community under the bus, the more he's willing to forgive and forget putin, the more suspicion, and i think it's going to dog his presidency until he breaks this cycle. >> is there a point where it makes it harder to do other business with him if he continues to do this, as far as you're concerned? >> i may be the test case of that, because i really do

believe he's come up with the right strategy in afghanistan. he's em poweripowering the mili. he's got the right attitude about isil, he's trying to rally the world to fight isil. and he told me to my face, lindsey, i will not let them have a missile to hit our homeland. president trump told me to my face, i will never let that happen. the only thing between war between the united states and north korea over this missile program is china. he understands the world pretty damn well except for russia. mr. president, you're hurting your ability to govern this nation by for giving and forgetting and empowering, forgiving and forgetting when it comes to russia and our democracy. putin, i just don't get it. >> there are reports that

president trump is trying to water down the sanction. you said if he doesn't sign the senate version, you said he will be betraying the democracy. is that your red line for working with president trump? >> at the end of the day, the house needs to pass a bill. if you don't like our bill word for word, you can change it, but i'm not going to gut the bill. i am intent on punishing the russians for interfering in our election. they did it in france, they're going to do it in germany, they're doing it all over the world, they're doing it in the balkan states, their neighbors, so i want a clear message from russia that you'll pay the price for cutting our democracy. if president trump doesn't embrace this, i think he'll be empowering the russians and betraying democracy. i can't say it any clearer than that. his speech in poland was terrific, that we as a nation are more secure when you have european democracies working jointly with us, that civilization needs to push back against isil, that russia needs to stop. the speech was great, but this whole idea about moving forward without punishing russia is

undercutting his entire presidency. >> i have to ask you, the deal with syria between russia and the united states and the cease fire, we've been through these cease fires before, but the secretary of state seemed to imply that, you know what, maybe they've got the right approach and we've got the wrong approach when it comes to syria. i'm curious what you thought of that comment from the secretary of state. >> i was just dismayed. i like secretary tillerson, but i just got back from afghanistan. we have a good military strategy to turn the war around. we're going to be more aggressive against taliban and international terrorists. but on the department of state front, there was no focus and no resources. we don't have an ambassador in afghanistan, we don't have one in pakistan. there is no effort on tillerson's part to be part of the team, to turn around afghanistan. and his statements about syria really disturb me. no, putin does not have it right when it comes to syria, and this cease fire is going to help assad. there will never be an end to this war as long as assad is in

power, so we're empowering the russians in syria. secretary tillerson needs to staff up the state department and use it wisely. they are completely awol when it comes to their part of the strategy in afghanistan. i'm so worried about the state department. >> all right. before i let you go, health care on the domestic front. are you ready to support this bill, and be realistic here. is there even a vote on health care in the next two weeks in the u.s. senate? >> i think this bill was better than obamacare. in south carolina we're down to one exchange. 70% of the counties in the nation only have one exchange. obamacare is failing. whether or not we can come together, i don't know. mitch is trying. i would support the proposal before us, but you got different camps in the republican party. but obamacare is going to fail. my advice is if it does fail, work together in a bipartisan fashion to replace it. i don't know what the outcome will be, but mitch is trying really hard. >> senator graham, i'll leave it there. >> thank you. >> only you are willing to spend

your birthday with us on sunday morning. happy birthday, senator. >> thank you. i get a reverse mortgage now. thanks. >> very nice. okay. when we come back, more on that trump-putin meeting, and then that north korean test of a missile that could now reach the united states. united states. are there any good options which you are you? united states. are there any good options be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems

these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®.

welcome back. the panel is here. rob acosta, who, among other things, host of "washington week" on pbs. white house correspondent kristen welker. ronna mcdaniel. and tom president. welcome, all. whether we know what the because wants to push or not, president trump made it clear this morning he wants to make sure we're all talking about russia and putin. and it always is a head-scratcher to me. news isn't good. he just had higdlindsey graham, republican senator -- look, an on-again/off-again critic. but he was in full critic mode

because of the tweets. >> i think what's going on here is the president believes, not unreasonably, that a lot of focus on the russian narrative is from people who want to undercut him and undermine legitimacy of his election. this is a guy that doesn't make concession against interest so he's just not going to get into that. the problem is now he's in a position where he is implicitly accepting the bald-faced lies that vladimir putin told him in this one-on-one meeting. >> marco rubio said partnering with putin is like partnering with assad on a chemical weapons unit. it is one thing he gets a lot of criticism from democrats, when he does this, there is a whole slew of republicans who just don't have the stomach for the putin stuff. >> nor should they. this is really outrageous. let's go through this. first we were on tenterhooks about whether he would even bring this up. so let's not define presidential responsibility down. he need to do bring this up, but he also clearly needed to bring it up in a way that was much

more forceful than what he has described himself as doing. "my opinion is known." well, what do we know about his opinion? what we know is he says nobody really knows for sure. that is, as lindsey graham says, empowering and it is in fact i'm going to use director brennan's words, dishonorable that he is not standing up really forcefully for an assault on miles an hour democracy. >> when you talk to republicans and democrats, but one of the things that infuriates them, concerns them about the meeting is that president trump said he was honored to meet vladimir putin. the optics of it. they feel like it was too chummy, and now the question is what's going to happen. is the white house considering lifting sanctions? are they considering restoring those diplomatic posts? i spoke to an official who said it didn't come up during the meeting, that putin didn't raise it, but that's one of the things that republicans and democrats alike are quite concerned about moving forward. >> let's talk about, robert, the fact is, there is policy consequences to this deal with russia. steve hayes, editor of the

"weekly standard," wrote this trump caves to putin. not consequences, not sanctions, not even the threat of retaliation from the united states. there is no need for a framework of understanding. vladimir putin understands what diplo-feculence means. the trump administration will not punish him in any way for his aggressive attempts to interfere in the 2016 election. yes, fecule thchnce means what think is means. but also in the deal with syria, russia got its way on syria. russia is getting its way on the russia investigation in this country. >> as kristen said, there is a consensus within both parties that putin is bad, and there is a hawkish view on russia in both parties. but you're really seeing inside the west wing right now a re-imagination of russia relations. trump actually considers russia to be part of the west and he wants to build new relationships with russia. it's striking, especially to republicans, especially in this

post-war era, to have that view of russia. >> if he doesn't meet with putin and he doesn't tweet about russia, there is a lot of talk that says, hey, he was saying tough words against russia. the printed word, the written word, the official speech, there is one policy and then donald trump tweets. >> the warsaw speech is easily the best speech of his presidency. i believe it was brilliantly conceived, well written, a moving narrative about polish history and also about western civilization and values. the irony is for a guy that is supposed to be a radical disruptor, the syrian policy is a direct steal from the obama administration which is obsessed with the idea that you could cut a deal with russia that would serve our interests somehow in syria. it failed with obama and i believe it will fail with president trump as well. >> there's teleprompter trump, and we could disagree somewhat about the impact of the speech and the message that was sent. because i would think -- i think there were good messages there,

for example, to re-affirm article 5 of nato. >> the eastern european countries that are wary of putin. >> yes. but there was also a kind of insular, only we in the west understand how to do these things correctly, talking about radical islam, which he hadn't raised before. leaving that aside, teleprompter trump is one thing and it's fine when you're reading a prepared speech. but we know who the real trump is and that's tweet trump and press conference on the rare occasion when he answers questions trump. >> you saw america isolated at the g-20 on climate change, on trade. he was so against the west going to bat for those policies. >> the first european trip, they were taken aback by his criticism. this one, he was like, i'm the bad guy, i'm wearing the black hat, come on, bring it on. >> and the white house feels it was a success because they say he was leading in a number of

areas like fighting isis. but as you point out, robert, you're absolutely. right. the united states seemed isolated on a whole host of issues from the environment to trade. when you talk about teleprompter trump versus press conference trump, remember he undercut the message of that speech in poland the very next day by essentially questioning whether russia stood alone in trying to meddle in the u.s. election. so a lot of competing messages he was trying to send out. >> they don't see a cost of going against senator rubio and senator graham. that view of russia they feel like they beat. >> well, that might not be a cause. but who wins in this showdown? who is empowered? putin or trump? i think the answer -- >> anybody think putin didn't get the better end of this deal? >> putin went into the meeting with a sense of what he wants to get and mostly gets it. >> and that's the conclusion for a lot of people. we'll take a pause. when i come back, work up a sweat during the day. not at night. only tempur-breeze® mattresses use an

integrated system of technologies to keep you cool while you sleep. ultra-breathable support layers channel heat away from your body. purecool technology delivers cooling comfort you can feel. and the performance cover is cool to the touch. so you sleep cool and wake up feeling powerful. right now, save up to $500 on select tempur-breeze® mattress sets at our july 4th event. find the breeze that's right for you at tempurpedic.com.

welcome back. if it seems as if there is not enough open dialogue between our two political parties, you're right, there isn't. but back in the 1970s, some of the decisions have taken place by having the chairs work together. joining me now in their first joint appearance since starting

their new jobs, tom perez, ronna mcdaniel. >> it's our first time meeting each other. >> i want to start with this. it goes to this issue of why people are so angry. pugh research in the spring of last year said, in the question of does the other political party make me afraid, 55% of democrats said that about republicans and 49% of republicans said that about democrats. i don't think things have gotten better since this poll was done. why do you think republicans are afraid of democrats, and same question to you? ronna, i'll let you start. >> i'm not afraid of democrats. and particularly in this election, we had a lot of democrat crossover for trump, people who had not traditionally voted republican. i think we do need more dialogue, talk about our differences in our respectful way. we have democrats in our family,

i hope you have republicans in your family. but i think they need to tone down the rhetoric and have a discussion about ideas. >> why do you think we got to this point? >> health care is a right for all and not a privilege for a few. we are the party of opportunity for everyone, not just for a few at the top. i think when we lead with our values, we can command the respect and the support of the majority of the american people. i think people want a good job for everyone. they want a secure retirement, they want health care, a roof over their head. those are not just democratic values, those are american values. >> it's funny you bring up values. our pollster said they were doing a focus group. they said, what is a value that you think both parties would share, a shared american value? and the room went silent. the room went silent. there is this belief that somehow democrats and republicans don't share any common values anymore? how did we get to that point?

that's what i'm trying to get at? go ahead. >> i think we do share common values. we want better jobs for people, we want better wages. listen, the republican party is not the party for the wealthy. we care about everyone. i think there is a different way to get to those things. i just disagree with their path. i don't think bigger government is the way to get things better. i don't think a failing obamacare that's collapsing and insurers are pulling out of the marketplace is the right way to do it. but i do think we would be better having a dialogue, talking about our different paths and how we get to the same solution. but i think everybody wants a better life for our kids, better jobs, better wages, better economy, national security and a strong country. >> i think the debate on the trumpcare bill is a perfect example of our differences. we believe, as democrats, that health care is a right for all, not a privilege for a few. you know, the affordable care act cut the ranks of the uninsured by almost 50%. was it perfect? no. and the north star for us is,

are we helping people get access to quality affordable health care? can we do better? the challenge that we have now is trumpcare is not a health care bill. it's a tax cut for very wealthy people and it really exposes this fissure. >> you're concerned about health -- i think health insurance is one thing. but right now you have health insurance costs that are doubling, you have deductibles that are so high and you have insurers pulling out of the marketplace. but that's not health care, okay? obamacare didn't get people health care. it got them higher insurance that they can't access health care with. so we have to find a way. republicans are sitting at the table and we're saying, democrats, come over ask talk to us. you put this in place. it's failing. >> this is really important. the affordable care act saved lives. i spoke to people. i get approached by people every day. my son is a the autism spectrum. and if i lose the coverage under

medicaid, i'm going to have to institutionalize him. we talk about the opioid epidemic. roughly a third of the coverage for opioid victims is through medicaid. and they want to change medicaid as we know it, and then this week or so you'll see a bill to add $45 billion to combat opioid abuse. that's like taking a dollar away and saying i'll give you 20 cents back. that's not going to help people. that's like going to a five-alarm fire, chuck. >> the affordable care act is not affordable. premiums have gone up 105%. >> i have no doubt the two of you disagree on the direction to go to obamacare. >> but it is failing. tell me it's doing well. our insurers pulling out of the marketplace. there are 49 counties who won't have an insurer next year. it's failing. >> talk to people who can afford the opioid epidemic and the

affordable care act helps them. >> i want to pause here a minute because i know where you guys are on this. but i want to ask a larger question here that has to do with this fight a little bit. there is a lot of people that are in the middle on this, okay? they hear a little bit from you and think, yeah, this is a bit too expensive. then they say, no, this is a right. we need to figure this out. but they feel the two parties don't allow them to be center left or center right, whether it's on this solution or not. do you accept this premise that both of your parties are captured by the bases right now? >> no, i don't. and chuck, let's talk about the access to health care. i believe, again, that access to health care is a right for all, not a privilege for a few. when we debated the affordable care act in 2009 in the senate, there were 100 hearings in the senate. there were 143 amendments to the final senate bill that were republican amendments. if this hadn't been done in secret as the recent bill had

been done, we could have come together. chuck schumer has said, president trump, convene us the way president obama did. because i'm confident that we can come together if our north star is, we're going to help increase access to quality affordable health care. >> where are you right now? the democrats are sitting on their hands. they're watching this thing they crafted collapse and they're saying, we're not going to come to the table. >> the centrist don't feel welcome right now. >> when tom goes around and says that about the other party, i know democrats care about other people. we just have a difference of opinion on the path to get there. but that type of rhetoric doesn't bring people to our parties. we have to have reasonable discussions, have a dialogue, be respectful of each other but share our opinions about what the path is to get to the same place we both want to go, which is a better life or our kids,

for our grandkids. >> do you regret saying that? >> chuck, here's the problem. i meet people who are worried to death buzz that republican repeal bill is not a health care bill. it's a tax cut bill for the mega wealthy massacre aidi -- masque a health care bill. don't take my word for it. these are the assess ments of people who have looked at the bill. 22 million people are going to lose their lifeline. the opioid epidemic is very real. it's a five-alarm fire, and you don't fight a five-alarm fire with only a gallon of gas, and that's what they're trying to do. >> i'm going to end the conversation here. the debate will continue, i know, this week and far beyond. thank you for both appearing and being very spirited. >> appreciate it. when we come back, the

growing divide in america over trust in the

we are back. data download time. what are the consequences of a president who calls the media the opposition party? not surprisingly, that may depend on who you ask and what their politics are. the pugh research center asks about the watchdog role of the

media every year. does criticism from the news media keep political leaders from doing things that need to be done or does it keep political leaders from doing their jobs? this year overall 70% of respondents said the news media prevents politicians from doing things that should not be done. that's an encouraging sign for those of us in the press. 30% said it keeps politicians from doing their job. those 18 to 29 are more likely to support the watchdog role than those 65 and older. and 76% of people with a college education or less to feel the same way. and the urban over the rural say they are doing what they should be doing. but they check on political leaders, older americans and younger americans, men and

women, all income levels, urban and rural americans, except one. only 42% of republicans says the media prevent political leaders from doing things that shouldn't be done, while 56% says politicians are kept from doing their jobs. compare that to 89% of democrats who support the media watchdog world. they usually flip on this question depending on which party is in the white house. not surprising there. but the split between democrats and republicans in 2017 is the sharpest odd that pugh has ever mentioned in this question since they started in 1985. president trump says the media is fake news, but this is a sign of ho

now with the panel. you just heard a lot about health care in the last segment with two of the party chairs. here's what pat toomey said about why it's so difficult to get a health care bill. >> you saw the consensus. since the election last fall, i didn't expect donald trump to win, my colleagues didn't, so we didn't expect to be in this situation, and looking at how difficult it is to get to a consensus, it's hard to enforce that. >> the senators i speak to on

capitol hill privately, many of them don't want to move forward with this legislation. they know it's unpopular and they would like to see democrats shoulder the blame with the health care act, and they know democrats want to run against republicans in 2018 with this health care bill. so if they can't figure out how to get the moderates and conservatives together, maybe they shelve it. >> my guess is they will punt. how will they react to that? >> if they punt and prop up obamacare, it will be really ugly. the structural problem they have is there is a faction of the republican party who at the end of the day doesn't want to repeal obamacare and there is a faction of the party at the end of the day who doesn't want to replace obamacare. therefore, if you try to repeal and replace, it interrupts what they're dealing with right now. >> it's going to be ugly for republicans no matter what

happens. if they're having if unexpected, as senator toomey told us, opportunity to actually govern and they fail to govern, the base who has been promised for seven years now that it's going to be ripped out root and branch is going to have a beef. and they can't not -- they can't say, well, obamacare is failing, which is not actually accurate, but they're doing their best to make it fail. >> we have a rural problem they have to solve. >> i think what's been striking based on my conversations with people at white house and on capitol hill is that they have two completely different versions of a plan b. you have people at the white house saying, if this doesn't pass, we do want to just repeal and then replace down the line. folks on capitol hill say, that's not realistic. that ship has sailed. we have to work with democrats to try to stabilize the market,

like mitch mcconnell said. if this fails, there is a lot of gray area on how we move forward. >> i'm not so sure this has become a grievance party, a party that encourages fake news. this base of repeal and replace, i don't see it when i'm out on the road. >> the white house does, and that's why they want to make sure there is repeal and replace. >> there is something the president has done on tradition. we know the party is polarized. i think we got an example of it there. they're still talking past each other. >> what i think is most poisonous in our politics now, it's not necessarily party conflict, we've had that throughout our history. it's the distrust in the institutions, it's the word "rigged" which both parties are invested in. i think that's the worst word in american public culture. >> one of the things i thought was striking from ronna mcdaniel

was talking about how democrats had failed somehow to come to the table, as if they had been invited to the table, as if republican senators and republican house members hadn't been crafting all of this behind closed doors with zero interest in bringing on democrats. and i thought that one of the telling moments this week in addition to senator toomey was senator mbcconnell essentially repeating his threat which was, if you guys don't get in line, you know what you'll end up with? bipartisan. >> and it is a threat. >> that conversation with the party chairman, how relevant are the parties? the president of the united states is a non-idealogical former democrat and the most popular person on the left is an independent senator named bernie sanders. >> had i gotten away -- had i been able to get a word in edgewise, it was one of the questions for them. are they nothing more than just check cashing machines or a credit line when a presidential

campaign needs them? >> they couldn't move off of their talking points, and i think it underscores how complicated it would be if, in fact, they had to try to work together to stabilize the markets. by the way, republicans are up against some tough deadlines including the debt limit. >> the base will not tolerate bipartisanship in either party. we're back in a minute with the end game. the end game. an oceans 11 which you are you? the end game. an oceans 11 be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara® just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine.

alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®.

back now with end game. there were a lot of interesting op-eds in all the newspapers this morning but one sort of caught my eye and i had to shake my head. headline, carl reiner, justice kennedy, don't retire. i was finishing oceans lerch and gearing up for oceans twelve while also writing another book, which led me to a cross country book tour. i know what it means to be your age. i know the problems that come with the journey. you, sir, are now an old man. and by the way, carl reiner is now 95. >> should put him on the supreme court. i've written two columns beseeching president kennedy not to retire. but the point that could resonate with justice kennedy is the justices have watched the justices retire to help her husband who was sick.

it is said she regretted it and she left too soon. so his point, you got a lot of good years ahead of you could really resonate. >> rich, the fact is if we don't get to retirement soon, it's not going to happen. justices are mindful of the political calendar. you don't do this on election years. >> many on the right are hoping he retires. there are a lot of great things he can do, country trips, barbecuing. if trump got a second pick, that would cement his place with conservatives. >> this would be political war to end political war. i have to leave it there. that's all we have for today. we'll be back next week, because if it's sunday it's "meet the press."

awe new report mentions that -- after receiving information that could help his father's campaign. now he is offering differing explanations for the meeting. >> plus, trump then proposes and backs down from a russia cyber security unit, but not after drawing criticisms from members of his own party. >> iraq's prime minister declares victory over isis in mosul after nine months of fighting. iraqi troops are looking to push out the last remaining militants. it's monday, july 10