it's 4:00. we're keeping an eye on an event at andrews air force base where the president and first lady are about to begin an event in front of military personnel and their families. as the president prepares to head to new york for the united nations summit of world leaders next week, where he will need the help of our allies to deal with ap increasingly belligerent rogue power, the question this hour, can donald trump be trusted not to tweet about sensitive national security information? the president today responded to news of a terrorist attack in london with a tweet that went further than our ally great britain would have liked. president trump tweeted this. another attack in london by a loser terrorist. these are sick and demented people in the sights of scotland yard. must be proactive. the tweet suggests that either the president spoke about something before having all the facts or that he learned in a

briefing that the suspects were known to british authorities. now unless the suspects had been apprehended and their entire ring shut down, which is highly unlikely, it would be unusual for the leader of another country to weigh in with this kind of detail in the first hours after an attack. here's how british prime minister theresa may put it. >> prime minister, donald trump has intervened to say this was carried out by people who scotland yard had in its sights. does he know something we don't? >> i never think it's helpful for anyone to speculate on what is an ongoing invest gaigs. as i've just said, the police and security services are working to discover the full circumstances of this cowardly attack and to identify all those responsible. >> all of this as national security adviser h.r. mcmaster says we are almost out of options on north korea. >> we've been kicking the can down the road and we're out of road. so for those who have been commenting about a lack of a military option there is a

military option. now it's not what we prefer to do so we have to call on all nations, call on everyone to do everything we can to address this global problem sort of war. >> if the president of the united states weighs in on any of our top stories today, we'll cut right to that. first let's get to our reporters and analysts. peter baker is the chief white house correspondent for "the new york times," susan glasser is here, chief international affairs columnist for politico. msnbc contributor bret stevens, an op ed columnist with "the new york times" and mark jacobson who is senior adviser to former defense secretary ash carter is also here. peter baker, let me start with you. i worked in the white house and really defined by terrorism here in this country, in the uk and around the world. and i found it very hard to tick through what could have transpired to make the president of the united states get ahead of british authorities in one describing the attack this

morning as terrorism before they did. and, two, suggesting or implying anything about the state of an investigation, by saying that they had the suspects in the sights of scotland yard. he was basically revealing another country's intelligence. >> well, he was if he was briefed on it and given information. it also, i have to say, it could be one of these things where he sees speculation talking about it on television and extrapolates things. >> where would he have seen it on television before the brits -- he tweeted at 6:42. do we think that we he saw someone -- >> i think there's some expert discussion about whether or not places like scotland yard should have these kinds of organizations under watch and so forth. it's easy to see how one leads to the next. it's a game of telephone, how things get reinterpreted by the time it gets to -- >> it's not a game of telephone when you are the president of the united states because you have a telephone. you have the red-hot telephone. you can call the best and -- i guess this is curious because as a candidate, it's a fair

assessment. as president of the united states, he could have known the facts. >> what john kelly has tried to do is, look, it's not going to stop the president from tweeting but trying to get the president to at least check when he uses factual assertions he picks up from the media or fox news or something like that before he puts it out on his twitter feed. make sure it correspondents with what the government says. what h.r. mcmaster, he was struggling to answer this question at the briefing. just talking about these things in general but that was hard to square with the president's very specific wording in his tweet. >> mark jacobson, from the perspective of someone who worked at the defense department if the shoe were on another foot and an attack had taken place in this country before the defense department or cia or the white house had called an event terrorism and if the cia or dia had intelligence that suggested the suspects were in our sights, how would the u.s. government respond if the leader of great britain had said, terrorism in

united states again. at least the cia has the suspect in their sights? >> i thought you were going to ask how congress would respond? if a democratic president had said anything like that we'd have investigations, calls for impeachment. my question is when is h.r. mcmaster going to sit the president down and give him that mandatory federal government course on leaks. if he did leak classified -- or did put out information that was incomplete or the brits asked him not to put out, look, it's helpful only to the terrorists. if he was just speculating, it's not helpful for the investigation. i think this is part of a problem that as we'll get to later can have serious consequences when the president tweets before he thinks. and i don't think kelly will be able to put him back in the box. >> susan glasser, there's no better ally. let's give the president the most generous interpretation of events that he wasn't trying to thwart the investigation into what was later confirmed to have been terrorism indeed and

gladly, no one lost their life. but this was and still is an ongoing terror investigation. and if you needed another data point, the uk has raised their terror threat in the last couple of hours to critical which i think our system would have as imminent. so they're on high alert suggesting the investigation is very much under way. and theresa may who is very measured in her public proannouncements about all subjects but especially terrorism said it us, quote, not helpful what the president said when asked directly about donald trump's statements. just weigh in. we've had a lot of conversations about donald trump world leader. weigh in specifically on what he did to theresa may today. >> you know, nicole, i'm glad you raised this because i do think there's a lot of bruised feelings in britain. this isn't even the first time in donald trump's very short presidency that he has weighed in with a tweet in the middle of an ongoing british terrorism investigation and bruised feelings. remember that war of twitter words with london's mayor sadeek

khan during the terrorist incident a couple months ago. there's a context for this that people in london who are understandably worried, horrified. these awful scenes of people coming out of the tube burned up and, you know, real concern that london is once again the focus of a terrorist attack that i believe the islamic state has just claimed credit for. so i think this doesn't suggest a great partnership that traditionally has been the kind of response to attacks like this. it comes at a moment of great scrutiny for president trump on the world stage. you mentioned he's going to be going to the u.n. general assem plea next week with a lot of skepticism about the strength of those alliances. we'll talk about north korea and that's a big question the people of south korea have. what kind of partner is donald trump for them? what kind of partner is he for great britain? >> brett stevens, one of the open secrets in trump circles is that donald trump has a direct

line between when you tell him something and when he tweets it. if there's something they don't want to see on twitter they cut him out of the flow of information. giving him the most generous assumptions about what might have happened here, what do you make of the fact that, one, he called the event terrorism before the british officials did, and, two, that he did something in the hours after a terrorist attack that had to be gently and politely rebuked by one of our best allies. >> you draw two conclusions, nicolle. even now he still doesn't know how to be president because tweeting about what seemed to be an attack on foreign soil before all the facts are in is simply unpresidential. but he also doesn't know how to be an ally and the subject of korea was brought up. we're right now dealing with one of the most serious foreign policy crises of the decade, and this is a president who keeps tweeting that he wants to

canceller free trade agreement with south korea. this is a major problem because american power in the post-world war ii era was built not just on our military strength but on our ability to bond disparate allies to our side because they trusted american institutions and the people who led those institutions. that's what's breaking down today with trump in the white house. it's not a matter of ideology or toughness. there's simply not confidence internationally in the person of the president. and that's true if you ask theresa may, president pena nieto of mexico or the president of australia and i suspect a great many other leaders of countries that consider us an ally. >> peter, let me bring you back to your reporting as this white house sort of deals with a rogue actor in north korea. and let me ask you what your reporting suggests about the post-bannon period for this national security counsel. is there more ability to focus

without worrying about h.r. mcmaster being's focus of smears and character assassination from a detractor within his own west wing? >> yeah, that's a good question. steve bannon's ally, his allies on the outside and his former media organization breitbart, now that he's returned to it, had waged a vicious campaign against general mcmaster. that subsided to some extent. the president has now several times publicly expressed his confidence in general mcmaster. he said i'm not very happy with him. he's not anti-israel as he's been accused of being. but there's still a lot out there. you still see stuff out there on the right attacking general mcmaster. i'm sure he's happy to have it outside the building rather than coming presumably from inside the building. >> this is the only white house in which that would count as progress. >> let me ask you all to stay with us. we're going to dip into the president's remarks. he's just made some comments about north korea. >> america and our allies will never be intimidated.

we will defend our people, our nations and our civilization from all who dare to threaten our way of life. this includes the regime of north korea, which is once again shown its utter contempt for its neighbors and for the entire world community. after seeing your capabilities and commitment here today, i am more confident than ever that our options in addressing this threat are both effective and overwhelming. >> mark jacobson, let me play the sound of sirens this morning in japan. [ sirens ] >> mark, i play that because this is what they woke up to with north korea launching missiles over japan this morning. can you just talk about the military reality, the grim

nature of all the military options when it comes to north korea? >> i think importantly for the japanese, that's the first time since the second world war, i believe, that they've woken up to sirens. and that's very -- >> chilly. >> very chilly. exactly. so the reality is this. i think mcmaster is wrong when he says that we've kicked the can down the road. there's no more road. i think the administration is working itself into a corner because it doesn't accept that a north korea that already has nuclear weapons, that will have an icbm capability that's going to reach the united states, poses no more of a threat, in fact, less of a threat than the soviet union did with its tens of thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at the united states. it is possible to deter the north koreans from using those weapons. but right now, the trump administration believes that once the north koreans obtain the weapons and the capability to use them, the capability to use them, then that may require

preventive war. and the cost would be tragic. i don't believe the cost is worth going in for a preventive war. we can deter them. and the military reality, as secretary mattis has said, several times, will end up with millions dead on both sides, and i think the destruction of both south korea and north korea in the end. >> susan glasser, we've talked before. you've been here on the days of fire and fury and other days. talk about where the president has put himself in terms of his own rhetoric on north korea. >> well, i mean, frankly, that's the element that's changed the most radically on the american side is the president's decision to engage in a public saberrattling on this. i was just doing some interviews on south korea before i came here. in the past, north korea has been the one who has used the rhetoric like fire and fury that we've seen, and they have, in

fact, repeated it. what's different is that donald trump has chosen to respond. adthe admiral who used to be in charge of director of national intelligence said it's like north korea was usually the small dog yapping at you and we normally chose just to ignore that. so the question is, does that create a new reality to have an american president speaking so differently, first of all. second of all, it's very striking how determined the trump administration is. you saw general mcmaster today. general mattis before talking about the credibility of our military option. is that a negotiating position? is that something to project forward, or are they really thinking differently about this than their predecessors? remember, bill clinton dealt with this, george w. bush dealt with this and president obama dealt with nuclear north korea. none of them had this approach that donald trump has had. >> let me give you the last word and ask you to weigh in on sort of where susan has brought this

conversation. her reporting suggesting that it's donald trump speaking in the kinds of language that we're accustomed to assessing from north korea. >> i just had the opportunity last week to interview former cia director john brennan. he made an interesting point to me. he said after trump's fehr and fury comment, the north koreans actually backed down, and it was only a few days later when steve bannon gave an interview, i think to the new yorker saying that we have no military option that the north koreans were very attentive to what is said by administration officials, resumed their testing and their missile strikes. i just want to very quickly disagree with something that mark said. if we assume that north korea and kim jong-un is a rational actor, then you have to assume that he would not respond irrationally to a limited american military strike to take

out north korean weapon sites. if, however, you assume he's irrational, then he's undeterrable and that means that we have to deal with the problem one way or the other. so the argument of those who say we can deter north korea the way we deterred the soefts union, it needs to be thought through a little more. it can sell them to iran, to other bad players. we know that from its history. >> we're out of time but, mark, i'm going to give you 30 seconds to respond. >> i understand those points. i do think that kim jong-un is a rational actor. i worry more about his conventional response to a u.s. limited strike, not back on the u.s. but on the koreans. on the south koreans. so i think that we forget that kim jong-un has a range of options to which he can respond. that's why i don't think we'd see an unprovoked nuclear strike. i'm less in agreement on the

issue of the north koreans selling the missiles, but, look, it goes to the point that there are a range of bad things the north koreans can do which is why i say get to the table and talk and talk and talk. keep them there. don't let them do other things that are going to be problematic. >> the debate continues. thanks to susan glasser. when we come back, maybe he's just not that into you. how republicans are adjusting to the new reality of chuck and nancy and the art of their deals. also ahead, irking the president, donald trump re-upping his attacks on espn and one of its anchors. why does she get under his skin. and facebook's reality. has the social network lost its mojo in washington? days, we get a gift for mom and dad. and every year, we split it equally. except for one of us. i write them a poem instead! and one for each of you too! that one's actually yours. that one. regardless, we're stuck with the bill. to many, words are the most valuable currency.

last i checked, stores don't take "words." some do. not everyone can be the poetic voice of a generation. i know, right? such a burden. the bank of america mobile banking app. the fast, secure and simple way to send money. i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424. [fbi agent] you're a brave man, your testimony will save lives. mr. stevens? this is your new name. this is your new house. and a perfectly inconspicuous suv. you must become invisible. [hero] i'll take my chances.

marie callender's turkey pot pie staa rich, flavorful gravy.in and a crust made from scratch. because she knows that when it's cold outside, it's good food and good company that keep you warm inside. marie callender's. it's time to savor. a pilot like you showelcome to miami.buses. you should be serving your country. [ whispering ] i'm working for the c-i-a. that sounds made up, barry. this is going to be good for us. nice wheels. [ laughter ] ♪ that's for the damage. and your bike. you never saw me. [ bell rings ] american made.

president trump described by politico today as elated by what he viewed as growing press after his deal with chuck and nancy last week. that's what those close to him say is fueling his sudden spirit of bipartisanship. but axios says the credit belongs to john kelly. the dramatically different information trump receiveds daily under john kelly is an underlooked factor in trump's decision to double down on his partnership with the democratic leaders. kelly has real control over the most important input. the flow of human and paper advice into the oval office. joining our panel today is nbc news national political reporter vivian salama, nbc host of politics nation and president of the national action network, the rev al sharpton. nbc news capitol hill correspondent kasie hunt,

politics editor for the root. let me start with you, vivian. what do you make of this. are we making too much of the new reality in washington, or is donald trump just finally coming home to where he always wanted to be which was in the democratic party? >> a lot of people would say that he was going to be in the middle anyway. a lot of people -- >> why? he ran on a muslim ban, on build the wall, lock her up. i think -- >> but that's not who he was. and i think that was even a concern for the republican base. the republican party, a lot of people who are true conservatives and felt he just did not cut it with regard to the ideology, the true belief of the party and whether he was going to carry that out. so for a lot of people, it's shocking, but it's not. because they feel like he's just basically coming to terms with who he really is, which is somewhere in the middle. and that's, obviously, unsettling. a lot of people in his party who thought this was going to be their moment to accomplish so much on the hill, to --

republicans -- to pass their agenda to get health care and taxes done. now they're going, uh-oh, maybe not so fast. maybe it's not going to happen. >> ann coulter yesterday said now everyone thinks donald trump should be impeached which may be the truest thing she's ever said. but vivian makes a great point because 16 republicans tried to say what she just said, that donald trump was never a conservative. jeb bush had an ad, and i remember talking to them when we were all covering them and saying what's your strategy. they said we're going to tell everyone he's not a real republican. why do you think that will work? he didn't say these -- as with the story we started with, he doesn't have an inner monologue. there's just monologue. there is no thought unuttered or impulse unexpressed. what he has expressed is support for abortion, he's supported democrats running for office. he's supported chuck schumer when he ran, supported hillary clinton when she ran but he ran

as the most fringy guy ever. was that all a ruse? >> i think that donald trump had a set of instincts for a cultural place in the country that had a lot of overlap with the republican party. but also was a little bit unto itself. there are a lot of people who voted in states that voted for barack obama who then turned around and voted for donald trump. and it's for reasons that are apart from all of these republicans in congress -- >> cultural issues. i interviewed a lot of these democrats that voted for -- the forgotten men and women. >> they haven't been waiting for republicans to pass a tax reform package. that's not the test for these people. the president was willing during the campaign to speak to some of these inflammatory impulses that are also stoked by people like ann coulter and rush limbaugh and others who felt as though he was willing to go to this

nonpolitically correct place and they liked that. and this particular issue is such a lightning rod because it plays right into all of those very inflammatory areas. >> let's go there. we're talking about -- and i remember saying this on "morning joe" one day when we were talking about family members that supported donald trump. he said are you calling your parents racist? i said of course not but they're listening to their darker angels. some of those places are places that are racially intolerant. >> the president is the one when he was campaigning who was touching those buttons the most aggressively. i think there are plenty of people who supported him who would say i'm not a racist, but he went there. >> this isn't about his supporters. i think by and large you have to give voters the benefit of the doubt. but i want to ask you about donald trump. can he go home to the democratic party after playing the race card? >> i think that we are missing a big important part of donald trump. there is no home.

he is home. with donald trump. and i think that his motto is win. the only reason i think that he in his soul is moving toward miss pelosi and senator schumer is he's been losing as president. you have to remember donald trump, and you and i talked about this before. donald trump has always felt people looked down on him, and he's looking at all this press that says he cannot perform as president. he wants to prove i can perform as president, and he'll throw to republicans, the democrats, and everybody else to the side to show i can do this. you don't think i can do this. if i've got to deal with chuck schumer, nancy pelosi, i can do this. look at this reaction when we see what happened in the attack in the uk. told you i was right about the muslim ban because you didn't

think i could do this. told you i was right about charlottesville because you didn't think i can do this. this is all about a very insecure man trying to prove he belonged in the real estate profession, that he belonged with the big guys in new york. now he's trying to prove i belong in the white house. it has nothing to do with ideology. i agree with kate. a lot of people that voted for him voted based on ideology or voted on what button he was hitting, but for him, he would have hit whatever button that would have elected him. he would have gone and played the race card as he did in wisconsin and come and sang "we shall overcome" with me at the next march as long as we can win. >> so how much do they let donald trump hug them? >> as much as you can. you just -- the goal is to get something done. and i pretty much agree. the president has no ideology. his ideology is what i want, what i feel like. and when he ran for president, i

don't think that you can run for president for two years. the reverend here, you can't run for president and pretend to be somebody else for two years. the racial animous, that's him, too. he is just as racist and offensive -- >> >> he's just as offensive and racist, and misogynist and anti-muslim as he is when he was running. >> is there any danger for the democrats to -- >> no, no, not in the short term. not in the short term. if they can get something done that makes them look like -- in the same way donald trump is lose with his own party and is failing and doing bad in the polls, people think the democrats are a bunch of feckless idiots, not getting anything accomplished. if you can work with trump in some small way, that helps them, too. >> it also gives him a platform to run for re-election. >> he's going to do that anyway. >> and a list of

accomplishments -- >> if he kicks the can down the road three months and they can't deliver, something that hurts them in the midterm, using your analogy about an arsonist, they better get out of the kitchen before it starts -- >> let me bring peter baker back in. let me ask you about steven miller. he is the president's ideological soulmate on some of the more hard line things we've been talking about. not a dealmaker with democrats. and there are reports in multiple outlets he's very unhappy with the direction that the president has taken on daca and immigration. i want to ask you two questions. one, is your report of steven miller's unhappiness suggest that he's more unhappy about daca than he was about the interactions between the president and his old boss, his mentor and sort of champion in trump world jeff sessions who was so distraught that as your colleagues reported yesterday, he resigned. i want to ask you about that dynamic, and i also want to know

why they haven't asked steven miller to go out and help calm the waters with the ann coulters of the world. >> that's a great question. i think probably because he is unhappy. but you see today that the white house briefing sara sanders lay out what she says are going to be the kinds of things the president would insist on to have any kind of deal with the democrats. this is where the rubber hits the road. limits on sanctuary cities, increased enforcement increased immigration judges, more border patrol agents and things like the raise act which would cut legal immigration by half in this country. those are some of the things that will be real red lines for democrats. that's where the danger comes in. what are you willing to give up? if you give up something to get something you want, do you pay a price with your own base? we've seen the president already being called amnesty don on breitbart which is steve bannon's organization, of course. and it's very easy to see a lot of democrats out there saying don't make a deal with somebody that we've been calling a devil

for eight months in order to get tradeoff things like sanctuary cities or border wall or something like that. >> let me give you the last word. i want to ask you if there is sort of no more consequences. do words mean nothing? does everything the democrats have said about the president in the wake of charlottesville, do they just say, i didn't mean it. i'm happy to work with him now? >> isn't that politics? >> is it? it wasn't. is it now? >> i do think they would like any way to carry out their agenda. moderate what they saw was this very right leaning, you know, agenda that was not part of what they had planned or their vision for this country. so, yeah, i do think if they can get in there and try to influence whatever he's doing -- >> a lot have called him unfit to serve. >> a lot of them did call him unfit to serve. if they can try to sort of help him serve, it may not be good for them in the long run, but at least they can talk to their constituents and go and say, hey, look, he didn't do the

travel ban or didn't build the wall because we had something to do with it. >> peter baker has to leave us. when we come back, i'm sure at least one or two of you out there will enjoy this image. that's a maga hat. we'll talk about his deal on daca and whether his base can live without their great big beautiful wall. ♪ when food is good and clean and real, it's ok to crave.

and with panera catering, there's more to go around. panera. food as it should be. (upbeat dance music) (bell ringing) it's about moving forward, not back.t. it's looking up, not down. it's being in motion. in body, in spirit, in the now. boost® high protein it's intelligent nutrition with 15 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for when you need a little extra. boost® the number one high protein complete nutritional drink. be up for it i just want to find a used car without getting ripped off. you could start your search at the all-new carfax.com

that might help. show me the carfax. now the car you want and the history you need are easy to find. show me used trucks with one owner. pretty cool. [laughs] ah... ahem... show me the carfax. start your used car search and get free carfax reports at the all-new carfax.com.

the cover story of october's atlantic magazine poses a stark question. will donald trump destroy the presidency? author jack goldsmith writes the constitution's checks and balances have largely stopped trump from breaking the law. and while he has hurt his own administration, his successors likely won't repeat his self-destructive antics. the prognosis for the rest of our democratic culture is grimmer. trump's bizarre behavior has coarsened politics and induced harmful norm breaking by the

institutions he has attacked. these changes will be harder to undo. let's bring back into the conversation "new york times" op ed columnist brett stevens because i feel you made a lot of the same points over the last 24 months. the fist thing that came to find, i believe he was president george w. bush's head of opl, were the attacks on the judiciary. the attacks on the first amendment. the cutting off of daily press briefings. the sort of things that make, maybe call us elites if you want. make someone that's served in government or appreciate the various institutions that make us different under the by this president. your thoughts? >> my thoughts are if you are a conservative, you think that culture at the end of the day has more weight than institutions. and culture can either elevate or it can corrode. and what you have in the trump presidency is a corrosive culture of populism.

attacking the small "r" republican foundations of government, separation of powers, checks and balances. and a certain kind of decorum. a president of the united states combines functions that say in britain are separated, head of state and head of government. he also symbolizes or ought to symbol eyes the dignity of the nation. i was terribly critical of barack obama when it came to his policies. but when it came to obama as the head of state, as my president, i always felt very strongly that he was my president. and in so that broader sense, he could unite the country. trump is absolutely unable to do so. and i think one last point, i think charlottesville was a real turning point here because with his comments about charlottesville, his ongoing comments, what he demonstrated is he doesn't get the cultural

foundation on which this nation has been founded since the days of lincoln or the days of martin luther king. that's going to stay with us for a long time in the worst possible way. >> you make a great point, and i felt, and i remember after newtown, feeling so moved by the president. feeling every single thing that he said i felt. and i was rooting for him to speak for all of our grief. and lots of moments. when bin laden was caught while he was president. i want to explain to our viewers and want you to spend one more minute on this. when the never trump movement started, largely undercover for most of uyou were a brave leader, i think before i was, but too soon after. the indictment was that we didn't understand the voters. we didn't appreciate the voters. that wasn't it. it was what you just described. it was this debasing of the party, the debasing of the office with the language like the "access hollywood" tape. calling mexicans rapists and

murders. calling john mccain a bad p.o.w. it was the debasement of everything we held sacred. >> you used a phrase earlier calling it the darker angels of our nature. what you're playing off of is lincoln's remark towards the end of his first inaugural in 1861. the better angels -- summoning the better angels of our nature. that's what presidents are supposed to do. that's why we are supposed to be a plurabuss say unum country. and that's why i think so many of us conservatives became never trumpers. i think it's also important to understand that trump isn't simply a kind of accident of american politics who sort of stumbled along. he is a figure that is well known to political philosophers as the kind of the classic demagogue. he's a figure who recalls some of the demagoguery, populism and

authoritarianism of the 1920s and 30. you need that to see him in that context. >> brett stevens, thanks for spending time with us. the white house just can't stop talking about the espn host who dared to criticize the president on twitter. i kept looking for ways to manage my symptoms. i thought i was doing okay. then it hit me...

managing was all i was doing. when i told my doctor, i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of moderate to severe crohn's disease even after trying other medications. in clinical studies, the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. just managing your symptoms? ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.

we used to resort to some pretty creative hacks to take care... ...of our jeans. it got weird. ahhh!

i'm just airing them out! luckily we discovered tide pods plus downy. so our jeans stay in great shape. and they actually get clean. what? we can wash 'em. tide pods plus downy. super concentrated to clean, condition and keep your favorites looking great. it's got to be tide. you said it was a fireable offense. that's being interpreted as saying that she should be fired. are you or the president saying that she should be fired. >> that's not a decision that i'm going to make. that's something for espn to decide. again, i was asked about that. i think it is a fireable offense. >> interesting. sarah huckabee sanders forced to answer a whole bunch of questions but not really answering them today about espn anchor jemele hill after she thought her tweet calling the president a supremacist a fireable offense.

it is unusual to say the least for a white house press secretary to weigh in on a member of the media's job status and whether or not they should be fired but then these are unusual times. a fact that's highlighted by the president's decision to tweet about espn this morning saying, espn is paying a really big price for its politics and bad programming. people are dumping it in record numbers. apologize for untruth. the panel is back. let me read espn's response. they have said that the comments on twitter from jemele hill do not represent the position of espn. jemele hill has are said my comments on twitter expressed by personal beliefs. my regret is that my comments and public way i made them painted espn in an unfair light. and espn explained their ratings to cord cutting. >> so many -- >> do tell. >> the thing that's dangerous about this, i think that people are missing, which is what many of us in the civil rights community are saying, if espn

does this, they'll face the wrath of a lot of us, is that the president nom -- >> wouldn't everybody be offended if sarah huckabee sanders calls for anybody ever to be fired? >> absolutely. >> but the reason we're saying it from a civil rights point of view is you're robbing a person of their right to express their views and firing them based on the encouragement of an office that nominates the fcc that regulates espn. let's not forget that the nominations for a -- you know this better than anyone -- for fcc commission starts at the white house. so you're talking to people who's got a deal with people that you put on fcc. so it's not just the president getting angry at cnn or msnbc. this is about attacking him and how he responds. he's the subject here. and it's the president that built his political career

calling the sitting president a non-american as a birther. so let me get this right. you can't say he's a supremacist but he can say that this president was not an american? i mean, really? >> let me ask -- you asked a question. let me ask three more. is this about her as a critic? is this about her as a woman? or is this as a black woman? >> it's all of them. >> all three. >> it's all three. >> first of all, i've said this all along. black women are like kryptonite. it's the one constituency they can't get to. african-american women summarily rejected this presidency like 96%, and they are triggered whenever a black woman says something, whether it's april ryan or susan rice or somebody else. they have this sort of visceral reaction. the second thing is, she didn't lie. throat there's lots of people who say that donald trump surrounds himself with white supremacists which makes it just as problematic.

but i'll say this. espn is caught in the middle of a larger cultural force that's happening in this country. people who want to watch football, don't want to watch football. you can no longer say that sports are not politics. if they had gotten rid of jemele hill, people would have summarily rejected that network for that. >> they wouldn't need the cords. >> as a woman broadcaster, i make mistakes. i -- my husband is like, what are you doing, fighting with someone on wait twitter? we have all sent tweets we regret. we all say things in our private life and we think, i hope our bosses don't hear that. but are we at a place where donald trump has had such a chilling impact on the debate where she has to fear for her job because a white house press secretary calls for her firing from a posium? >> i think there are two

separate questions. she has a responsibility to her employer, to espn, to follow the guidelines and to conduct herself responsibly in public. and privileged positions like that, we all have a responsibility. but that's a completely different question than, what would we normally say, someone in a position of power is trying to, you know, get something out of person who has less power. that's fundamentally called bullying. >> let me play the devil's advocate. kathie griffin lost her job for sort of crossing a line. other people have lost their jobs. is the other side of it, has a line been crossed? >> from the president's side? >> i'm from the -- i'm not taking the white house's side on this. i think that as a broadcaster, as someone who sometimes engages on twitter, i understand what she's saying. she's apologized. but is the other side of this maybe that there are people who have lost their jobs because they crossed a line? >> oh, there's definitely a line that should not be crossed when you have this platform and

you're able to speak to the public and do it in a way that's unbiased to appeal to, you know, especially espn. it's not a political form. so there is sort of that area, that fine line that you have to be aware of. >> she didn't do it on espn. she did it on her private twitter. >> right. >> it had nothing to do with espn. >> but second, we have to be very clear that, nicolle, there's a difference in kathie griffin talking about harming someone or someone making a racist or bigoted statement and someone stating a political position. she did not call him a racial name. she identified what she feels was his politics and his political surrounding. >> a world view. >> which is her right to express her view. >> sure. and i have to say, this white house also, this president has also shown that he has zero appetite for criticism. and so when somebody does criticize -- >> especially women of color. >> it's also provable, whether

or not he's a race cyst not the question. he's made people who are white supremacists feel very empowered. >> his policies are. >> up next, a new reality for facebook. is it able to withstand the growing scrutiny? it's your business of the week. when disaster strikes, will you be ready? robert rising, other than of new york slab wasn't. a fire tore aport his custom furniture shop and he lost almost everything in he discovered he had the wrong insurance. find out how he rebuilt his business. watch "your business" weekends at 7:30 on msnbc. >> announcer: sponsored by -- so we're a go? yes! we got a yes! what does that mean for purchasing? purchase. let's do this. got it. book the flights! hai! si! si! ya! ya! ya! what does that mean for us? we can get stuff. what's it mean for shipping? ship the goods. you're a go! you got the green light. that means go! oh, yeah.

start saying yes to your company's best ideas. we're gonna hit our launch date! (scream) thank you! goodbye! let us help with money and know-how, so you can get business done. american express open. p3 it's meat, cheese and nuts. i keep my protein interesting. oh yea, me too. i have cheese and uh these herbs. p3 snacks. the more interesting way to get your protein. you'dreamt about it, it, maybe you should just go ahead and do it. we're legalzoom, and we've helped over a million people just like you start their own businesses. legalzoom. legal help is here. i am totally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424. tap one little bumper and up go your rates.

what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. liberty mutual insurance.

facebook found itself under the microscope of late thanks to bob mueller's russia investigation, dealt another embarrassing blow today. this time thanks to reporting

from pro publica. the investigative news site exposed a major ad flaw in the sales system allowing advertisers to enabling news feeds of almost 2,300 people expressing interest in the topic of jew hater. how to burn jews or history of why jews ruin the world, "to test if these ad categories were real we paid $30 to target those groups with free promoted posts in which a pro-publica article or post was displayed. facebook approved all three ads within 15 minutes. after we contacted facebook it removed the anti-semitic categories created by an algorithm rather than people and said it could explore ways to fix the problem." joining us now, recode executive editor kara swisher. a little bit of a deja vu.

we had the conversation about their inability or willingness to confront what might be fake news about russia. now it's hate speech targeting jews? >> right. yes. i told you, the slow roll what i'm talking about. it takes -- this and algorithm, doesn't care. that's the problem. so i think the question is, is facebook really properly policing its various systems? whether it be content, ads or anything else. i think that's the concern here. that they sort of have a -- i wouldn't say disorganized or it's sort of a crazy system, but the fact that these are able to happen and they don't know about it, that easily. it's problematic. the algorithm creates it and again, the algorithm doesn't have an opinion, just creates things. >> kara, use understand better than me.

facebook, google, twitter, all resistant to the technologies that filter out child porn, to use as a filter for fake information or information offensive to everybody. >> yeah. >> why the resistance to those kinds of technologies? >> you know, first of all there's a libertarian streak in silicon valley, free speech above all. you saw it happen at google with james demore and his ridiculous essay he wrote about women being neurotic. all kinds of mentality. i don't think that's at work here. first of all, facebook has 2 billion people on it and is reaching all of these people. so they're going to see problems everywhere, but this has been an issue that has plagued them a long time. if you remember, controversy around breast feeding photos and things like that. then that famous vietnam war photo of the young girl who's running after a napon bomb.

he removed it. they need to find other ways to pliz these things and not allow people to use these systems to create that kind of thing, people that describe run-ins with facebook corporate, sounds like an saeestablishment rb. slow to treectreact to a crisis to realize how bad things are. resistant to transtransparency. and can you talk about their new reality? not viewed by the good guys everybody, but viewed by a lot of democrats as part of the problem in the election. >> sure. >> viewed by people, i have a kid. i don't let him on facebook. they are now not viewed as squarely good guys. >> i think everyone in silicon valley sees themselves as good guys and i argue this. the last year arguing with

executives at facebook over this and called one this week and said you're in the cross hairs. you have to understand, pay a lot of attention. of course, they were very -- of course, we're doing something about it. of course we're concerned, of course. i said i don't think you understand the three-alarm fire going on here of anger towards you. and that regulatory solutions will soon be placed. it's happening in europe. happening elsewhere. they have to be aware if they want to run a giant platform it's not benign in all parts and cannot be solved by an algorithm. they should be creating community standards, policing them, removing fake content. they have a responsibility, and like i said yesterday. i think with you. the terms only geeks can understand with great power comes great responsibility, you super spider-man fans. that's what it is. >> very glad i get to call awe colleague and contributor now. thank you so much. reeled you in and we'll stay on the story. >> reeled me in. thank you.

>> thank you so much. jason what do you think? >> unpopular to say. i don't think it matters. facebook is huge. almost a public utility. you have bigotry and crazy people. only have a blob it comes to the russian ads. anybody who run as political ad in this country, you have to say who you are. whether running for dog catcher or mayor. that they should give over to the mueller investigation. that has to do with the public in general. anybody else, be whoever you want to be on facebook. >> the other side of this. are they immediate organizations like us, have has to uphold standards. we can't go on the air with something that true. a standard department. >> essentially, it's not our problem and we have rules and ways we do business and if they are going to be the primary way, whether they want to or not, americans are receiving their information on facebook. >> absolutely. >> and americans are getting a lot of their news off facebook. they should have standards like any other news outlet. i agree that it clearly should identify when you are having

political ads. this is not people just trolling. >> give them credit for that. a for effort, facebook. thanks to the panel. ed reverend al sharpton and kasie hunt, and that does it for ut. "mtp daily" standards right now. hi, chuck todd. >> i call it my wednesday. >> that's right. sorry. >> see you sunday, then. if it's friday, are we seeing a temporary blip or the start of something truly different for president trump? tonight, president trump tries to take back control of his presidency. dealing with democrats and voicing frustration with republicans. >> if they're unable to stick together, then i'm going to have to get a little help from the democrats, and i've got that. >> but he's still serving up red meat on twitter. is that enough to satisfy his hungry base? finally, my firsthand look at the utter devastation in the u.s. virgin islands. and m