that is our broadcast for a friday night and for this week. thank you for being here with us. good night from nbc news headquarters in new york. >> the art of the deal. let's play "hardball." >> and good evening. i'm steve kornacki in for chris matthews. did president trump strike a deal with democrats on daca? that's the question everyone keeps asking, and the answer you get, it depends on who you ask. yesterday nancy pelosi said yes. here she is a day after deaning with the president. >> we had an agreement to move forward. in our view with the d.r.e.a.m. act for the basis for how we

protect the dreamers and for further discussions on what provisions relating to the border might be in an accompanying bill or whatever as we go forward. so i trust the president in that regard. >> the president also seemed to signal he was in fact open to something, but it's unclear exactly what he plans on doing. here's what he said yesterday. >> we're working on a deal for daca but a lot has to do with the amount of security. we want very heavy security at the border. we're not talking about that. we're not talking about amnesty at all. we have not talked about amnesty. there will be no amnesty. >> president trump supporters and some of his allies were not pleased with the news. according to politico, stephen miller, an architect of trump's hard line immigration policies express ed displeasure and strategized about what to do first. chris buzz kirk, editor of a conservative website had a warning for the president and

writes, quote, if president trump reverses his campaign promises and supports a daca amnesty, then within the span of a new days he would do to himself what the republican establishment, the clinton campaign and openly hostile media couldn't do, kneecap his presidency and separate himself from his base. amnesty is where republican careers go to die. in congress meanwhile republican leadership is trying to hash out a legislative solution. many though are wondering how do they get here. axios reports the president's course correction could be due in part to the influence of his new chief of staff, general john kelly and his ability to manage information that the president gets. according to action yoes, kelly has real control over the most important input, the flow of human and paper advice into the oval office. for a man as obsessed about his self image as trump, a new flow of input could make a world of difference.

i'm joined by jonathan swan who wrote the piece for axios. all of the theories out there about what strategically might be behind what trump is doing. you seem to be suggesting that every morning in the white house he's presented with a stack of clippings and news and the nature of the clippings has changed because of kelly and maybe he's changed the president. >> well, that's a fact, the nature of the clippings has changed because of kelly. what's interesting is not so much why he did what he did with chuck and nancy. i think there's a number of reasons for that. trump has done impulsive things in the moment many many times. what's interesting is that he's stuck at it for a few days and hasn't pivoted wildly in the other direction. and what would have happened under reince priebus as chief of staff is, if trump had done the dinner he did with chuck and santa see and started talking like, frankly, an establishment republican or even a moderate democrat about immigration overnight, you would have had

stephen miller, his most hard line nationalist aide would have printed him out the front page of breitbart which called him amnesty don. he would have printed out polling which would have show, whatever supports the argument that primary voters with, this is the most important issue to him. he probably would have printed out tweets by ann coulter. and he could have under the old regime strolled straight into the oval office and slipped in front of trump and that happened on a number of occasions, with other people putting material in front of the president which would rile him up and flip him on a dime. that no longer happens. if someone like stephen miller want to put an argument to president trump, under the kelly regime, he has to submit a formal request in writing to go see the president, he has to provide source material, here's what i want to talk to him about. and look, under this regime, there is no more slipping paper onto the president's desk. the inputs are controlled by general kelly who is a very moderate man and frankly there

is no bannon anymore whispering in president trump's ear. >> the inflammatory stuff being kept out of the clippings. what bannon left, a lot of people said he's still got trump's cell phone number. he's going to work the back channels to trump. do we know, is that not happening? >> well, steve bannon apparently told chinese or the hong kong audience that he talks to trump every two or three days. i don't know whether that's true or not. look, i know they've spoken at least twice since he left. but the fact is the daytime matters and it matters what media trump is seeing. it matters what's in his binder in the morning which he receives and looks through clips. and kelly can control what's in them and no longer can people slip in, you know, other stories that might rile him up. no longer can people go through keith shiller and send him signals that way. he still has time in the residence at night. you can still reach him.

it's not like he's completely hermetically sealed from the outside world. but it's a big deal. and if you look at his top advisers, general kelly, a very mod kate ran, gary cohn, jared and ivanka, trump is surrounded by people that are sympathetic towards the plight of the dreamers. i think this is not an unsubstantial factor in all of this. >> it's a fascinating piece you wrote there. thanks for joining us. for more, joined by our panel, nan hayward and baysal smiekal from the new york state democratic party. nan, let me start with you. we have the clips from the conservative media, that the voices maybe aren't getting to the president these days. but those voices are out there saying look, if donald trump

goes forward with this deal with nancy pelosi and chuck schumer, that's amnesty to the republican base and poison to the republican base, he's going to lose the base that elected him. is there truth to that? >> he does run a risk with the folks who elected him. it's not just republicans as we know. he won the rest belt because he appealed to a lot of democrats who worry about those issues. >> is this amnesty to him. you saw the clip of trump yesterday saying they were forced by their parents to come. the democrats are going to say we want parent status and citizenship maybe. where does that fall for the voters? >> i think the president is going to think very very carefully about these things. he is not -- as you know, isolated from the voices of his base. but the other factor that is so salient, steve, is that -- and sean hannity pointed this out. when health care failed in the senate, when senate mcconnell couldn't lead to a health care win, the president redoubled his insistence and i frankly agree

with him that if the republicans are going to dominate in the legislative process, the agenda that that the president brought to the american people, they need to break the filibuster. so long as they don't, senator schumer has a lock on legislation. he can block a heck of a lot of stuff. that's why the president turned to schumer and pelosi. >> let me ask you from a democrat standpoint here. when trump initially or sessions for the trump administration initially made the announcement that hey, this daca thing is going away, democrats said no, we want a permanent status here for daca. it looks like there's going to be some strings attached here. looks like there's going to be more money for the border, more border security, exactly what form that takes we're not sure yet. is that acceptable having any kind of compromise on this to you as a democrat? >> it's a tough and fine line they're going to have to walk. if they're seen -- and i trust nancy pelosi's reporting of what

happened in the meeting. but the challenge for us, for democrats is we want to be able to move the needle on policy but we also don't want, especially after coming out of a resistant summer, we don't want to seem as though they're capitulating to a president that's unpopular with the democrats and independents. >> here's an example. if trump comes to the democrats and says look, permanent legal status for the daca folks, i'm okay with that, i will sign it but it can't be citizenship. the democrats say deal? >> i don't know if they say deal. i don't know if they say deal because again, the question becomes have we failed our base. we've been pushing back on this for so long. i don't know if it help us to say that we want to -- we're going to get everything or a lot of what we ask for but we're still going to leave the rest to the republicans and the president to fine-tune down the road. i don't know if that works. i trust chuck schumer and nancy pelosi. we'll see.

>> what seemed to be a candid moment on the senate floor, he had a straightforward explanation for why trump may be working with him. take a listen. >> he likes us. he likes me anyway. what he said is exactly that. here's what i told him. i said, mr. president, you're much better off if you can sometimes step right and sometimes step left. if you have to step in one direction, you're boxed. he gets that. it's going to work it and it will make us more productive too. >> anne hayworth, what do you make of that? there's this talk that there's a new york bond with trump and schumer. he likes to cut deals there. >> sure. >> do you see as a republican the basis here -- because what schumer is describing there is a model not just for this. he's describing a model potentially for a longer term partnership between trump, schumer, democrat leaders. as a republican, what do you think of that?

>> you know, steve, it's to be expected. the president has actually a longstanding relationship with senator schumer, not all of which was hostile for a long time. as we know. and chuck schumer is an operator in the new york sense of the word and so is the president in a lot of ways. and to the extent again that senate republicans cannot lock on the legislation -- and that doesn't mean that i as a republican wants to see the democrats locked out. i don't. what i don't want to see is chuck schumer being able to block any major bill and i think that's exactly what he intends to do. >> it seems that trump is sending a message to mcconnell and to ryan saying you guys failed me. now i'm look in the other direction. >> he's looking at chuck schumer with the conversation, the democrats have been holding the line and that you certainly saw that with the health care bill. and he's looking -- he's saying to himself -- i always use the sports parlance. he wants a w. he doesn't think he can get it from his own party. if he can get it through the democrats, he wants the do that. the downside is what happens with his base.

but i think to be honest with you, as long as he can go out there and sell something, i think he's okay with that. and for the democrats we want to see that. we want to see chuck schumer and nancy pelosi holding the line. and i think for daca and other policies, this is winning for us. >> how many times can republicans in the house and the senate get a piece of legislation, this was trump, this was pelosi, this was schumer. that's where the deal was cut. now you republican you have to vote for it. looks like daca that may happen. how many times can they do that? >> i think it will be very, very difficult. let's nas it, we have a majority of republicans in both the house and the senate. but what the president is doing, the president is not dogmatic about republican policy. so i think it's a message to republicans that look, they have to have their operation finely tuned because you're right. from the democrats' point of

view, they're sitting in pretty good position right now. >> but we've got to be careful because the political cleavage between the republicans and the president and the democrats is pretty wide. >> there's a lot of opportunity. >> we will see a twist in the story of the trump soap opera, a twist at the start of the fall. nan hayworth and basil smiekal. thanks for joining us. new reporting on russia's effort to influence the 2016 election. we already knew the kremlin linked group targeted voters with facebook ads. now we're learning they used social media to get support for the anti-clinton rallies. president trump's response to the attack in london. and we're going to talk to andrew cuomo. he is back from a trip to the u.s. virgin islands. this is a high profile trip for him. is it a sign that cuomo has his sights on a presidential run. and finally stick around for three things you might not know tonight. this is "hardball" where the

action is.

the senate judiciary committee is considering issuing a new subpoena to donald trump's former campaign chairman, paul manafort as part of its investigation into russian meddling in the 2016 election. it will be the second time that committee subpoenaed manafort. it rescinded a previous subpoena after manafort agreed to turn over documents and continue negotiations about being interviewed by the committee. the top republican, senate chuck grassley from iowa has indicated that the discussions have stalled. up next, a look at russian efforts to influence the election last year through social media.

i think that we're still at the tip of the iceberg. the fact is i don't think facebook has put the resources, the time, and i think there's a

lot more. clearly there's a lot more questions that need to be asked and answered. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was senator mark warner of virginia, the ranking member of the intelligence committee saying on wednesday we don't yet know the full extent of russia's influence campaign on facebook during the 2016 campaign. and new reporting this week shed some light on the methods behind that method. according to the "the new york times," russian operatives stole images from real users on facebook to impersonate them in fake accounts. russian operatives used facebook events to promote political protests in the just, including an anti-immigrant rally in idaho. a russia linked front group attempted to organize a series of anti-immigrant, anti hillary clinton rallies across texas last november three days before the election. that particular group had almost

a quarter million followers as of last summer before it was shut down last week. i'm joined by natasha bertrand from "business insider." natasha, a quarter million members. take us through what this looks like for people who are maybe lay people with facebook. what does this look like on facebook and what does that look like on the ground when you've got a group of a quarter million members, anti-hillary group. they're organizing events in texas. take us through what this actually was. >> it was a hugely influential facebook group, had 225,000 followers at the time it was shut down by facebook when it was murjing all these inauthentic accounts that facebook said was likely operating out of russia. this is a group that was also reaching out to the texas nationalist movement which is a cessationist movement based in texas.

i spoke to the president last night of the texas nationalist movement and he said they reached out just before they organized the protests to see if they would collaborate with them. it adds a new layer to the russian interference. >> and there were protests and these things did go off? >> yes. facebook actually created events that people attended and they posted photos of themselves at these rallies, probably several dozen of them that showed up, nothing too successful. but people were rallying to go out there because of this face russian group. >> and "the wall street journal" reports that facebook gave the special counsel robert mueller more detailed records than they've shared with mueller. the information that facebook shared with mr. muller included copies of the ads and details about the accounts that brought them online and the targeting criteria they used. i'm just curious what you make of that new reporting. >> yeah. i mean this is something that facebook is really going to have to begin to answer to. we saw it earlier this week, cnn reported that, you know, they

really didn't know the extent of who was buying the ads, how many of the ads were disseminated, who they targeted and now people are upset with facebook because they want to know, was i a victim of all after this? >> will, the other question all this raises, texas wasn't a particularly close state in the election last year. idaho was in the bag for trump all along. but do we have a sense here on a connection between how the stuff that was going on on facebook and on the ground too, any potential connection between what actually happened on election day? >> well, that's a question that i think will probably never be fully answered. we don't even know how ads that are purchased through normal means in u.s. media influenced the election exactly. and so to know how these ads that were purchased on facebook and these groups organized on facebook, how that played out on election day is impossible. what we do need is a lot more information from facebook about the extent of the problem.

they came out last week after the washington post reported on some of this stuff and they disclosed the results of one investigation that found about $100,000 in ad spending and 470 sock puppet accounts linked to this shadowily kremlin-linked russian group. those are the kind of figures you disclose if you want to minimize the extent of the problem. 100,000 in ads on facebook can go a long way if it's targeted well. and there have been reports that suggested this may have translated to 20 million, 50 million, 100 million people in the united states seeing these posts on facebook in their feeds. >> natasha, is there information here this is from the russian government? is that a suspicion? what do we know about the origin of this? >> all we know is what facebook told us. they released a public statement about two weeks ago now saying that they shut down roughly 470 accounts they determined were

inauthentic and likely linked to a company that was operating out of russia that was this kind of troll factory. we don't know anything more than that but i imagine that's what mueller and congress will want to get to the bottom of. >> and will, from a user's standpoint, there's a question about how facebook is responding to this. you say there were tens of millions of people responding. who knows what else might have been out there. from a user's standpoint, any way to identify this stuff? any way to protect yourself from your own image being used in something like this? >> not that we know of so far. i mean, some of this stuff is just coming out. i don't think that getting your profile photo and personal information stolen by kremlin-linked operatives was a known threat or something. it's not one of the pitfalls that you first think to look out for when you set up a facebook account. i don't know that there are any specific hacks that i can recommend to avoid that happening to you.

>> on that note, natasha and will, thank you both for joining us. and up next hillary clinton speaks out on north korea. we're going the tell you what she says is complicating our efforts in dealing with the north koreans. this is "hardball" where the action is.

i'm dara brown at msnbc world headquarters in new york. here is what's happening, unrest in st. louis, protests turning violent friday night after the acquittal of a white former police officer in the shooting

death of a black suspect. protesters gathered in various locations and ability 1,000 surrounded the home of st. louis's mayor. they broke windows and threw paint at the house. overall nine police officers have been hurt and at least 237 protesters arrested. that's what's happening, now back to "hardball." i'm richard lui, protests in st. louis today after jason stockley, a white former police officer was acquitted in the fatal shooting of anthony lamar smith, a 24-year-old black man. smith was shot five times following a police chase in 2011. officer stockley claimed smith reached for a gun. prosecutors argued the officer planted the gun in smith's car. 13 people have been arrested. the case has prompted racial tension not seen since clashes in nearby ferguson in 2014. now back to "hardball."

welcome back to "hardball." north korea launched a ballistic missile on friday that passed over japanese air space and flew 2,300 miles. the "the new york times" notes a slightly greater distance than between the north korean capital and the american air base in guam. the times reports american officials say it was clearly intended to show that the north could reach the base with ease. this comes day as after the u.n. security council imposed new sanctions against north korea. today nikki haley told reporters that she doesn't see many diplomatic options left. take a look. >> they continue to be provocative and reckless and at that point there's not a whole lot the security council is going to be able to from here when you've got 90% of the trade and 30% of the oil. having said that, i have no problem kicking it to general

mattis because i believe he has plenty of ob shuns. >> i'm joined now by gordon chang, columnist for "the daily beast" and author. let's start on what nikki haley said. look, we've tried the diplomatic route. not much more we can do with sanctions. that sounds like an escalation, kick it over to the pentagon. >> that's what h.r. mcmaster the national security adviser said when he was on the podium with haley. the time has run out for diplomacy. that's consistent with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said in july, there's only a few more months for diplomacy. we're seeing a point in the administration where they're starting to think now is a time to pivot to something for coercive. >> what could that entail? >> it could entail the use of force. but i think ambassador haley is wrong. yes, the security council looks like it won't go further on sanctions but that's only because the united states has not put a lot of pressure on china. until we do that, we're not going to give the chinese an incentive to help us at the security council. she's talking about the way the

world as it is. but that's not the way the world should be. we don't want to use force. that would be horrific. and we ought to try everything we possibly can before we start talking as she's talking about. war talk is really premature. >> what the north koreans are doing here, this is not the first time we've seen a provocation like this. they are well aware of the basic military capability of the united states. well aware of the united states relationship with south korea. is this a statement every time they do something like that right now that they just don't believe we mean it when we say we take this stuff seriously? >> absolutely. and also the north koreans don't really respect us because yes, we have the world's most capable military by far but you've got to remember the north korean mindset as they've dealt with us. they seized the pueblo out of international water. we didn't do anything. a year following that, 1969 they shot down the navy ec-121, 31 dead.

the u.s. didn't do anything then. the north koreans look at us and say these guys we can push around. when they get nukes and they try to push us around, that's when you have the period for miscalculation will be the greatest and of course the consequences also will be the greatest. >> so when you say u.s. should put pressure on china, use that as leverage and china then can get the attention of north korea, what does that look like? what is china doing that's going to get the attention of north korea and what effect would that then have? >> well of course the chinese support the north koreans with their economy, diplomacy, all the rest of it. but the most important thing that china gives the north korean regime is confidence. confidence they're safe from the international community. i don't think beijing could change kim jong-un's mind but it doesn't matter because what china can do is influence the senior advisers around them administration make them realize it's no longer in their interest to maintain the weapons programs and maybe china could say to these guys, it's no longer in your interest to support kim. china can do that if he wants

to. it doesn't want to. and clearly we have not given the incentive to china to make them go down to path. but we do have the power, steve. >> we mentioned this a moment ago, former secretary of state, defeated presidential candidate hillary clinton told rachel maddow that the state department under the trump administration is not equipped to deal with north korea. take a look. >> diplomacy with north korea is complicated. it requires people who know the language, the customs, the history. we have decimated our state department, foreign service officers with decades of experience have either been ignored or in some cases pushed so hard that they have resigned. >> so we know there's validity to the idea that the state department is understaffed right now. there have been all sorts of reports about rex tillerson not being particularly interested in the sorts of people that hillary clinton is talking about. can you see in the current

situation with north korea that having an effect? >> certainly it has an effect. we adopt have an ambassador in south korea. now the one thing that's actually sort of good is that the trump administration has been effective in dealing with moon jae-in, the south korean president. the one place we're lacking people is the treasury department. the people who enforce sanctions. if we're going solve this peacefully, it's because that we cut off the flows of funds to the north korean regime that they use for their nuke and their ballistic missile programs. but clearly at treasury you don't have some spots filled and until the sports are filled, we're going to have a hard time tracking down the money. it's not just china. it's a big piece of it. but it's all of the countries around the world that we need to go after. we need people in treasury to do this. secretary clinton is right about the state department. but let's look at the other parts of the federal government. >> gordon chang, thank you for

your time. still ahead, the latest out of london where a massive manhunt is under way for those responsible for this morning's attack. you're watching "hardball."

law enforcement officials tell nbc news that uk authorities have identified a suspect in this morning's subway bombing in london. the massive manhunt is now under way for that person. for the very latest, let's go to kelly cobiella in london. >> reporter: police here in london say the investigation is moving on quickly. at a very brisk pace. they are looking for at least one suspect. no names put out there yet. and so far as far as we understand, no arrests. but multiple senior law enforcement officers in the u.s. briefed by uk authorities say that the uk authorities have identified a suspect behind this bombing.

they also say that this improvised explosive device, this homemade bomb had a timer but that the bomb didn't detonate properly. it still spread a flash fire through the subway car at 8:20 in the morning, the height of rush hour, commuters as well as parents and children in the subway car. some 29 people were injured. most of the injuries are described as minor. more than a dozen hospitalized today. we understand that none of those injuries are serious or life-threatening. tonight isis is claiming responsibility for this attack, but law enforcement here in the uk like to emphasize that the terror group often does this after an attack like this showing no evidence of a direct link. and so far they have found no evidence that isis was somehow directing this particular

attack. also tonight on a final note, steve, the threat level here has been raised to critical. that's the highest level in the uk. it means an attack may be eminent, but authorities here like to stress as well that it also means more officers will be freed up to work on this investigation, to work on the manhunt. >> all right. nbc's kelly cobiella, thank you for that. up next, we'll talk to a new york governor andrew cuomo. he's just toured the devastation in the u.s. virgin islands. we'll be right back.

and welcome back to "hardball." new york governor andrew cuomo traveled to the u.s. virgin islands today too see the damage caused by hurricane irma and to get a better idea of how new york state can help in the recovery effort. after surveying that damage, the governor announced that 100 members of army national guard and 30 members of the new york state police will be deployed to st. thomas to provide security and support on the island. new york governor andrew cuomo has just returned and joins me from westchester airport. thanks for taking a few minutes. tell me if you would about what you saw on the ground down there. we've seen some obviously some awful pictures coming out of there. tell me what was that like on the ground and how it came to be that the governor of new york ended up down in the virgin islands being called on in a moment like this.

>> well, actually, steve, i think it was much worse than you would think from the coverage that we've seen here. i was surprised at how bad it was. we had so much going on in this country between florida, texas, et cetera. i don't know that people really focused on the virgin islands. but it was devastating. the power system all across the island was down. the poles were snapped like twigs. cables down but i don't mean here and there. all of the cables, power cables down in the street, poles blocking the roads, homes, steve, that had two walls blown out literally. and people still living in the homes. so it's going to be a really long, long time before they come

up to speed. governor mapp called me, i know the governor, and there are a lot of connections between new york and the virgin islands. the governor himself actually was a new yorker. he was a member of the nypd at one time, actually. so there are a lot of connections. i had worked in the federal government, as you know, as secretary of hud. i had done a lot of emergency work here in new york. so he asked us to come down, help with an assessment to see how we could pitch in. the virgin islands doesn't have the depth of government that we have here in new york or most states. so that was the purpose of the visit. but it is devastating. >> i want to ask you as well, you made some other news today in the midst of this trip on immigration. you signed in new york state as the governor an executive order that tells the state police they can't be inquiring about immigration status. i know you've got some conservative critics saying this amounts to a form of amnesty. tell us about what the order is

and why you're making this order. >> yeah. it has nothing to do with amnesty. you know, when we talk about daca, we talk about the wall, these are real people, right? new york we have close to 50,000 people who are under the daca regulation law, whatever you want to call it. and they're living their lives in total uncertainty. each under daca they would have to recertify every two years. this is pressing upon them. my executive order says state agencies are not going to inquire about immigration status. first of all, it's not a state responsibility, it's a federal responsibility. second of all, we know when people are afraid about the inquiry they tend not to contact authorities. the executive order also says if there's a criminal investigation

then the police can inquire about immigration status. but if they're just seeking services, they're looking to lodge a complaint, they're a witness, to intimidate them by asking them about their immigration status is unnecessary and chilling. they won't come forward to testify in a case. they don't come for medical assistance. i had a personal situation, steve. i was standing on the street corner in manhattan. i saw a car go through a red light and hit a person on a bicycle. and the person on the bicycle got hit very hard, flew literally through the air 10, 15 feet, was all cut up, was all scraped up. a group ran over. i said, let me call an ambulance. and the last thing this person

wanted to do was to be in an ambulance or go to a hospital or talk to a police officer. he got up, he pushed his mangled bicycle away. this is a person that is seriously hurt and should have been helped and frankly was probably entitled to compensation. so if a person is a witness, a person needs health care, a person is a victim of domestic violence, you want to tell a woman you can't complain about domestic violence only because you're afraid they're going to ask about your immigration status. it makes no sense. if it's a criminal investigation, then i agree. but not just to intimidate people, especially with washington going through all of this turmoil. >> let me ask you about this, because the context of your appearance right here is that you have the high profile trip to the virgin islands. the contrast here, i think

people have already noted in the press between your executive order and donald trump and his rhetoric on immigration, i think a lot of democrats certainly appreciate that and a lot of people are looking right now at the democratic party, excuse me, and 2020 and an opponent for president trump. you've seen a number of democrats make moves towards that. is that something that you're taking a look at? >> no, forget about the presidential politics. it's simpler than that, steve. you have hundreds of thousands of people across this country who are affected by daca. and it's now a political football in washington, right? and we're going back and forth, if you listen to the news, there's going to be this deal, that deal. these are people we're talking about. and these are people who are wondering where their lives are going to fit in the midst of all of this political back and forth. so to the extent we can give them some certainty and comfort

here in new york, that's exactly what we want to do. and i've made my position clear from the get-go. i am pro immigration. we're a nation of immigrants. this is lunacy to me where we now turn out anti-immigrant. who is not an immigrant? unless you're a native american, you're an immigrant, right? the president's family were immigrants. so i never understood this anti-immigrant fervor except it was politically expedient and a way to create a bogeyman for middle class people who had economic anxiety. >> all right. >> and it was a nice simple answer in a campaign. but now it's -- you have to remember you're talking about real people, you're creating more anxiety with this possibility of political deal making using hundreds of thousands of lives like they're a chess board. >> okay.

>> and also, daca and the wall, steve, are not about two individual issues. there's a deep philosophy in policy that is under those issues. >> okay. >> it's the tip of the iceberg and that iceberg goes very deep. >> okay. new york governor andrew cuomo, joining us from westchester airport. we appreciate the time. we will be right back with the "hardball" roundtable.

welcome back to "hardball" hours after that london incident on a london subway, president trump took to twitter, these are sick and demented people in the sights of scotland yard, must be proactive. the president used the london incident to promote one of his agenda items, writing, the travel ban into the united states should be far longer, tougher and more specific-but stupidly that would fought be politically correct. we have annette lopez, very

correspondent for business insider, philip bump, a political reporter, and lynnette, not with the first time with this president presidency, what was the audience intended for? what was the exact message? >> what i found is he said politically incorrect, instead of potentially, constitutionally like not okay in the united states of america. that's one thing. now he's doing deals with nancy pelosi and chuck schumer, he needs to be more tough talking and talk to his base. i know there are people out there disappointed in the negotiations that he's making. so now, it's an even more important time for him to be as hard line as possible on social issues.

he's been praying in public. he's been trying to connect to the base that way. while he's also been talking to you know -- >> that's the question, philip, it does make some strategic sense if you have the risk here of your base getting upset with immigration and you know you take some hard line public position. on the other hand, my sense with trump is he's a lot more reactive than strategic. >> i think you said this correct. this is at least fourth time by my count he has either inappropriately related something to terrorism before the fact and before authorities said it was terrorism. the reason he does this i think you are right. reactive. anytime he sees terrorism. he thinks he can play to his own political advantage. he tweets there is terrorism and tweets immediately after how we feed the terrorism ban and yet, of course, when there are other acts of violence and terrorism not perpetrated potentially by muslims, a total different reaction, days to respond. this is a core thing, a core philosophy is i need to jump on

top of this terrorism. >> it's interesting, too, at the start of the show, we had jonathan swann at axios, look, kelly the chief of staff has done a good job of tightening and controlling the information that comes into trump every morning. he's not looking at breitbart headlines every morning if he does x, he will be a sellout. he is looking at different information, a major national story, an international story is playing out, he takes out his phone, donald trump is communicating with everybody. >> the president is just like you and me. in the morning, he wakes up, he checks twitter. he tweets something. but he's the president. that's the problem. he behaves like a normal person on twitter as if his words don't carry immense gravity, and they do. he has the best security apparatus in the world. use it. wait an hour. it's not live tv. >> what you are saying, it's interesting, too, to the idea this might be strategic or if it isn't strategic. >> i think he misunderstood what i'm saying. i don't think this is strategy. this is something that comes

from his gut. anybody that knows him, he has visceral reaction to things. he has a few goals and a few statements and a few things about his campaign that are sticking with him, the wall the travel ban, being hard on terror, these are the things that are kind of sticking in the way tax reform or health care don't. >> these types of reactions of the effect, whatever the motivation for it, would have the effect of helping to shore up that connection that he has with that base. >> and he needs it right now. >> okay. we will see if we get more details, too. that's the other question on this daca. we will get details of what will be in that legislation if it does emerge. quick, we'll be back with the "hardball" roundtable. is this a phone?

or a little internet machine? it makes you wonder: shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost, so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com. all right, lynnette, tell me something i don't know. >> the journal of american medicine this week declared drug the government spent a billion dollars on for five years probably doesn't work any better than it's alternatives or a 50th of the cost. philip. >> i went to staten island this weekend to see how sandy survivors affected by harvey and irma, i found eight houses not

repaired five years later. still a lot of work to be done. >> not a good sign. nick. >> we think we're living in a uniquely deadly age for terrorist attacks. but it has been worse in the '70s in an eight-month period. there were five bombings a day on american soil. the first one often called a firing but it wasn't. it was a resignation. the first one came 24 days into the new administration. three and a half weeks in and already shedding their first senior staff. february 13th, trump national security advisor mike flynn resigned from the white house. that was in february. then in march, next out was the deputy white house chief of staff, katy walsh. then in april, it was the deputy national security advisor mcfarland. then in may, it was the white house communications director