>> this weinstein thing also, the nypd and the office, questions have to be answers there. we'll probably get some of this sorted out very soon. >> in the middle of reporting about ivanka and jared, too. our thanks to all of you. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace, and now "mtp daily" and katy tur in for chuck todd. tonight, a meltdown over nuclear. >> i think somebody said i want ten times the nuclear weapons we have now. >> firing back on the president's nuclear ambitions. >> general mattis put out a statement saying that was fake news. >> plus, steve bannon's war. >> i think the best thing for the republican party is to stay

unified and focus on our shared agenda. >> why bannon's promise to help unseat members of his own party is giving us 2010 flashbacks. later from silicon valley to the hill, facebook's coo gets grilled on russia's reppenization of social media. this is "mtp daily," and it starts right now. hello and welcome to "mtp daily," i'm katy tur in washington in for chuck todd. another day, another revelation of high-ranking government officials indicating some level of disagreement, or alarm, about what the president might do when it comes to international affairs. today his new revelation is, of course, nbc news exclusive reporting that president trump told officials at the pentagon he wanted a nearly tenfold

increase in the nation's nuclear arsenal. this afternoon, president trump is pushing back at that reporting hard. >> no, i never discussed increasing it. i wanted it in perfect shape. that was just fake news by nbc, which gives a lot of fake news lately. no, i never discuss -- i think somebody said i want ten times the nuclear weapons that we have right now. right now we have so many nuclear weapons, i want them in perfect condition, perfect shape. that's the only thing i've ever discussed and it's a frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write, and people should look into it. >> secretary of defense jim mattis pushed back on nbc's report with the statement saying, "recent reports that the president called for an increase in the u.s. nuclear arsenal are absolutely false. this kind of erroneous reporting is irresponsible." nbc news stands by our reporting. president trump's comments about wanting more nukes happened back

in july. and apparently came after he was shown a briefing slide that illustrated america's steady reduction of nuclear weapons since the 1960s. nbc news cited three officials who were in the room that day. it was after this meeting officials said that secretary of state rex tillerson referred to the president as a "moron." the president has dismissed that reporting as well, and nbc news also stands by it. for multiple days now we watched president trump question when it comes to national security. many times by high-ranking government officials who are on his side. it was just this week, of course, that senator bob corker told the "new york times" he felt trump's recklessness threatens world war iii. remember, this wasn't just coming from anyone. this was the republican chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. and now the president is soon expected to decertify the iran

deal, a move that would run counter to what top members of his own national security team, like defense secretary mattis, and joint chiefs chairman joseph dunford, have warned against. >> do you believe it's in our national security interests at the present time to remain in the jcpoa? that's a yes or no question. >> yes, senator, i do. >> iran is not in meal breach of the agreement and i believe the agreement to date delayed a nuclear capability by iran. >> the fact is, the stakes in this moment between iran, isis and north korea could not be higher. joining me now are two of the reporters who broke that exclusive today nbc news national political reporter carol lee and nbc news national security and military reporter courtney kubey. so, courtney, defense secretary mattis pushed back. the president obviously is

pushing back. tell us what our reporting is and whether or not there are actually, they're neg aiating i? trying to refute it, i should say. >> reporter: our report is in the course of this briefing at the pentagon back in july which was a worldwide briefing, looked at the whole world, the force posture, one of the slides president trump was shown was the nuclear arsenal and a look at the history of the arsenal. from the time of inception to the present day, of course, peaked during the time of the courted war and came down during the course of various treaties and whatnot. we'll told by several officials that president trump said he wants more, and he questioned why he doesn't have more, and they explained the history, explained the treaties and whatnot. so secretary mattis put out a statement -- by the way, nbc specifically said that despite this conversation that occurred in the tank, nothing has changed in the nuclear arsenal.

there's been no change. >> ordered no change. >> exactly. no change. secretary mattis put out a written statement today saying that the president never called for an increase, which, of course, nbc never said that the president called for an increase. we said that he questioned the number. he said he wants more. but if he had called for one, keep in mind, he's sitting in a room full of the most senior military leaders. if he called for something, ordered it, something would have happened. >> yes. >> so, you know, it's just counter intuitive to say he did call for it when we never said he did. >> it also shouldn't be that surprising if our sources are correct and they say they are correct, that donald trump would want an increase of nuclear weapons. he talked about it a lot on the campaign trail. in fact, we have a sound bite mash-up of all the times donald trump talked about nuclear weapons. you know, we don't actually have it available to us, but essentially he talked about, he was confused about what the nuclear triad was and also

talked about how you can't take anything off the table, and we need to make sure that we protect americans. so, carol, should it be surprising? >> no. and not only that, you remember this, because you were there. he numerous times said that other countries perhaps should get nuclear weapons, that more nuclear weapons are better and also has been inconsistent. at other times said, i don't -- i want to have less nuclear weapons. what he said in his statement, remarks in the oval office today was that he never discussed increasing the nuclear arsenal. that's just not true. we spoke to a number of people in that meeting and he did, and also it's a little bit kind of a distraction to say that he didn't say he wanted it tenfold. >> yeah. >> because what he did was point to the number of nukes that, at the u.s. peak, in its stockpile, which was, where they are now. said i want that. that's essentially almost ten times as much as they have now. >> why is this reporting significant? the fact that the president asked this? why is that an important piece

of information that the public deserves to know? >> well, anytime you're talking about a change in the nuclear arsenal it's critical, important. it's not just -- >> the president xplesi inexpre interest in it? >> yes. this isn't the president talking on twitter, but talking to senior national security leaders of the united states saying, i don't have more nukes, why don't i have the more nukes, i want more newarks and he didn't seem to understand why the nuclear weapons are set at the level it is. >> how many no ukes do you need? you're not going to launch all at the same time? >> exactly. an intricate balance and military leaders tell you that. that the number of nuclear warheads the u.s. has right now,

while it is mandated by treaties, by international treaties, it's also what the u.s. needs. >> one of the other reasons why this is significant is because this conversation happened in the run-up to what we now have as a, the -- the most heightened tensions that the u.s. has had with north korea over its nuclear program, and the president beating the drum of war, and repeatedly saying that option's on the table and talking about nuclear weapons. and so, you know that. add th and then you have this move to kind of start to unravel the iran nuclear deal. that's why the president's thinking on these issues really matters. >> carol, courtney, thank you very much for joining us, and great job on reporting, as always. >> thank you. and the president's rhetoric on nuclear weapons has been unpredictable and contradictory over the past two years including comments that i was just mentioned a moment ago that rai

raised concerns during the campaign. >> can you tell the middle east we're not using a nuclear weapon? >> i would never take any of my cards off the table. >> what about europe? >> i'm not taking it off the table. >> you might use it in europe? >> no -- >> just say it. >> i am not taking cards off the table. >> we are not keeping up with other countries. i would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it, but i would certainly not do first strike. i think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over. at the same time we have to be prepared. i can't take anything off the table it is an absolute last stance, and you know, i use the word unpredictable. you want to be unpredictable. i'm not a fast trigger. i would be a very slow trigger with nuclear. >> you say to japan, you get nuclear weapons, and saudi arabia says i want them too. >> can i be hon effort? going to happen anyway. a question of time they'll start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely. >> i will be the last to use it. i will not be a happy trigger

like some people might be. i will be the last, but i will never, ever, rule it out. >> time to bring in our panel. politico chief international affairs columnist susan glasser, former communications director foreboth barack obama and hillary clinton's campaign now with the center for american progress, jen palmmary. >> and some will say, so what if you ask? why is it a big deal that the president of the united states meeting with national security leaders asked about what our nuclear capabilities were and whether or not it was a good idea to potentially expand them? >> well, look, a couple points. first of all it was excellent reporting and i say it was important reporting, too, because it established a context for last week's very inflammatory report about secretary of state rex tillerson. that's important, because, you know, it's not just a fight about nothing.

right? this isn't some sort of "seinfeld"-like reality show exercise here. right? there are substantive foreign policy and national security disputes occurring within president trump's team. what you've seen in nbc's reporting and that of other people is the beginning of establishing concerns that we've heard from foreign officials as well that president trump is not deeply versed in the issues on which he's making decisions. right? people coming in with slides, foreign government preparing presentations for the president of the united states assuming he doesn't know much about it. this report today suggests a lack of familiarity with not only what is in our nuclear arsenal, why it is that we have internationally agreed to limits on our nuclear warheads, on the types of strategic capabilities we have. remember, during the campaign, president trump didn't seem to be familiar with the basic of the nuclear -- triad. i think it is significant.

>> jumping off of that, we have one donald trump who says that he hires the best people. he has the best people in place. he has the generals who are telling him what to do, and the other donald trump who then says, ultimately, i am my own adviser. i am my best adviser. when you read reporting like this, michael what do you think? >> i think it's a combination of those two things coming together in a very awkward way. i think the president sits in these briefings and hears a lot of intel. he hears a lot of different things and that starts his mind wandering and asking a lot of questions which is probably very good. but then that other side of his brain takes over which is a significant part of it, which says, this is how i think i want to do this. now that i know what i need to know or think i know what i need to know this is what i want to do. when he asks the kind of questions be a the size of our nuclear arsenals and what our competences are there, that's his side, that side this brain going i think i want to do something also different here.

the question then becomes, do we settle back in to a space where the people who know what we need to do and how we need to do it actually have the final say? and that's always the debate. >> then there is the president going out on twitter and, again, as we just showed in the intro to the show, questioning whether or not we should have the first amendment essentially. questioning freedom of the press. somebody should look into that. it's not the first time he's said these things. should we just consider that an empty threat or is it -- is it damping, really damaging, beyond just as his presidency, for the president to question the fourth estate in such a significant way? >> i don't think we should dumb down or standards of democracy to fit what comes out of his mouth or his twitter account. >> we shouldn't just say, this is just trump being trump -- >> he's the president of the

united states. and he's speaking in response to a story that i think you know, i think is, as susan said, it's very revealing about how he's approaching questions of nuclear capability and nuclear war and this isn't an academic exercise. this isn't let's test out how his mind works to see how he may handle the threat of nuclear war. we are actually living in a situation where we are actually living under threat with north korea and he's getting ready to open up another front, if you will, on iran tomorrow when we just saw his cabinet secretaries testifying that they think that the iran deal is a good thing for -- >> ultimately -- >> he is his best adviser, says it himself. "vanity fair," i hate everyone in the white house. trump seethes -- goes on to two sources familiar with the conversation. trump vented to his longtime

securityschiller, just left the white house. i hate everyone in the white house, there are a few exceptions, but i hate them. a white house official denies this. the president's state of mind. michael -- take it away. >> yeah. that's aboat full right there. at the core from the moment he came down the escalators to right now. it's always been what does this man think of the job? what does he want to do? how does he perceive it? and it is nowhere near anything we've historically seen or in more recent times come to expect from our presidents. jer yeah, he's not happy. he's in an enenvironment told what he can do, can't do, must and must not do, he doesn't like that. he's realizing 540 bosses up on a hill with whom he has loom interest in nor relationship

with and i think that is more frustrating than anything else. he comes from the world, you know from following him and monitoring his behavior and rett rik rick over the last through years when he says something, that's it. there is no other word. in washington, no. the president's word is not the final word, as i think every president will tell you. there are a lot of voices that are important voices that become a part of that conversation. >> a lot of responsibility, but not as much control as he probably thought there was. >> and plenty of presidents who complained about the white house as a prison. right? >> yes. >> a lot of the -- >> the crown jewel of our penal system. >> exactly. right? that's not unique to donald trump. but i think clearly the issue goes to this, i refer to it the adults in the room theory. donald trump knows to a certain extent he's perceived as being managed in particular on the national security side of this and that's making him so angry. >> corker saying the only thing standing between chaos and us a

rex tillerson is jim mattis, john kelly. in this reporting as well, steve bannon is apparently saying to associates that he believes the president only has a 30% chance of making it through his first term. >> well, that, again is not surprising to me at all. i've thought for some time the president is looking for that big payday, that big legislative initiative win that then gives him a number of options in terms of whether or not he wants to re-up or he wants to cut it short. if you hate the job that much -- >> cut it short in the middle of his -- >> bannon put it out there. i think he's absolutely right. >> i don't know. i wonder -- just whenever people have said donald trump might quick, resign, might, he might drop out after the "access hollywood" tape, but from the campaign, that's just -- in my experience hasn't been donald trump's personality. >> it's less about dropping out at -- >> i wonder talking more about external factors. >> right. >> leave it here and come back to you in a few minutes.

coming up, will steve bannon's promise to take on the republican establishment next fall remake the party in his image or help hand power back to the democrats? i'll talk to one congressman who fought the establishment isn't 2014 and won. stay tuned. who knew that phones would start doing everything?

entertaining us, getting us back on track, and finding us dates. phones really have changed. so why hasn't the way we pay for them? introducing xfinity mobile.

you only pay for data and can easily switch between pay per gig and unlimited. no one else lets you do that. 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. welcome back. judgment moments ago president donald trump officially named kirsten nielsen to the next secretary of homeland security. she will need to be confirmed by the senate. nielsen is general john kelly's longtime aide. she was his chief staff at the department of homeland security and came to work at the white house when kelly became chief of staff and she is currently the white house deputy chief of staff. we'll be right back with steve bannon's civil war with republican senators, and how it could tank the party in 2018.

(vo) do not go gentle into that good night, old age should burn and rave at close of day; rage, rage against the dying of the light. do not go gentle into that good night. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

welcome back. parties that control both chambers of congress and the white house don't typically find themselves in the midst of a civil war, but that is where the gop is in 2017. president trump was swept into office largely by an insurge against outside of party establishment. now his former white house adviser steve bannon is continuing that fight calling for primaries against incumbent republicans and pushing for candidates, say, who he says will push out the established party leaders. >> we are declaring war on the republican establishment that does not back the agenda that donald trump ran on and the president of the united states, and that is an agenda we know back working men and women. >> if it sounds a little familiar, it's because it is. the anti-establishment tea party wave began around 2010 in part to reaction against the obama

presidency. here's steve kornacki on this show yesterday. >> all the things what was scaring the establishment back then is that all of the tools they thought they could use to fight off insurrections in their party, money, endorsements, media, all of these traditional tools of politics completely failed them in these races and what you're seeing, saw a little, a warning shot in alabama a few weeks ago with roy moore. that energy is very much there, cannot stand the republican establishment. >> a major moment in that tea party movement was in 2014, the primary, when outsider dave bratt upset house majority leader eric cantor in the primaries. joining me now, that very virginia republican, congressman dave bratt. congressman, thank you very much for joining us today. good to see you. >> sure. you bet, thank you, katy. you bet. >> you came into office prime marrying a member of your own party and are you okay with steve bannon's call to primary incoumbent senators? >> yeah, well, it's too broad of

a brush, but in general, i -- i stick by what i ran on which was the virginia republican creed and the republican platform. where i draw the dividing line is if you promise to your voters and constituents that you're going to support the republican creed, and you're going to repeal obamacare and bring down taxes, et cetera and then you lie to your constituents or the american people, then, yeah. no, that's -- it's wide open. right? >> yeah! >> you have to be true to what you promised and so it's not just about the tactics of the establishment versus the grass roots, whatever. it's about substance and we believe in the republican platform that we have an agenda that's made this nation great over a couple hundred years and are kind of running off course from that. and believe it or not, i honestly believe that goes from bernie all the way through to trump. right? the middle class issues are front and center, the wage rates flat for 30 or 40 years for

real. right? maybe up a tick here and there. and i asked bernie a couple years ago at a white house christmas party, said, bernie, everyone talks about right wingers versus left wingers. i don't see that up here. i see your party and my party doling out $4 trillion to buddies and the cronies. is that the way you see it? he said, yeah, dave. what the hell you think is going on up here. that's what's going on and why people liked him as well. he cut through it and trump cut through a lot of the bull up here and the american people know the system is rig it's. if you get in the way of disturbing the status quo right with the obamacare health care repeal, upset the applecart, the swamp here gets very nervous. >> congressman -- >> yep, you bet. >> let me get one other question in. follow-up. >> sure. >> point taken on fulfilling your campaign promises and that is what the tea party campaigned on. repealing obamacare. what many of your members fellow members of the house campaigned on. >> no. let me correct you on that. >> you haven't -- you haven't

repealed -- >> all republicans. >> all republicans. >> you haven't repealed obamacare. tried three times and it hasn't happened. do you support leadership in your own party getting primaried the way you primaried eric cantor? >> yes, in particular in the senate. anyone who did not vote to repeal -- by the way, repeal in webster's dictionary means to get rid of. we never had a gbill to repeal pap huge monstrosity, voted no in the first case. prices down a little. went yes. then in the senate, go to a skinny bill, which is more of a madison avenue tag line than it is a health policy. right? got rid of a couple mandates, taxes stayed, couldn't vote on that. yes, time for them to go. >> congress should go. fine. >> absolutely. >> do you think donald trump should be campaigning to primary republican senators? >> ah, if he sets the criteria

that we have a republican party which he's the head of, right? the symbolic head of and we have a platform and you all promised to fulfill the promises to the american people i think he in good conscious can say, yes. you're way off course. his agenda is obamacare repeal, taxes and regs. right? when bannon's talking about the agenda that's the one we're talking about, not a nebulous thing out in the either. those big three which will get the economy going and raise wage rates for the american worker. what we're trying to achieve here and i think the country's with us on this. >> congressman, is it republicans' job, members of the house, members of the senate, to support whatever the president's agenda is, or do they serve at his pleasure ultimately? or is it more the constituents who voted them in? >> yeah. no. that doesn't logically follow.

his agenda is -- >> bannon is saying i want to have senators and congressmen in place that will support the president's agenda, period. >> yes. but the "period" that is included in the republican platform. and it's important -- >> vote against mitch mcconnell? try an stop mitch mcconnell? i mean, that's bannon's goal, his stated goal. >> well, ask mitch mcconnell if he's all-in on getting all of this through and we'll see coming up on tax. right? as the leader, it's his job. none of the folks who voted no on obamacare have been reprimanded in any way, shape or form. they'll all get $20 million for campaigns stay on the committee chairman and whatever. the freedom caucus, we used to be considered kind of the rebel rouser, conscious of the party. now i think the whole country seeing clearly it's been tipped upside-down. we're the people that kept our promises. just traditional republicans that kept our promises that we made to repeal obamacare, lower tax rates, get rid of business

regulations so the middle class and small business can grow. it's flipped on its head. >> no. you're trying to. so far haven't repealed obamacare. >> you got that right. >> taxes are coming up next. i know you want to talk about taxes. >> yep. >> a big tax cut to the wealthy. you have hurricanes that cost a lot of money, you have the military that costs a lot of money. given those things, given the national disasters we're dealing with and the fact the president wants to put more money into the military, do you think it's time for a tax cut on the wealthy? >> well, that's the way the left phrases it, but business is the supply side. >> that's the way independent analysis phrases it. not left. independent ainternationnalysan >> you got your point. let me make mine. the supply curve, it's business. tax cuts to small businesses and corporations, if the democrats want to say that's to the wealthy, that's the only thing that increases productivity and the only thing that will incries wage rates. the left has no alternative how

you raise wage rates. no economic theory or nothing. if that's the way the left wants to cast it i'll take that debate all day and we'll clobber it and we'll win the people and bernie at least had labor in mind, right? hillary lost on identity politics and the left, the democrats are unfortunately going off too far left on the identity politics instead of looking out for labor and hard-working wage workers across the midwest. right? from michigan, ohio, pennsylvania. that's where the race was, and i think we're gaining ground and picking up states, and if this contrast stays i'll take it any day. >> congressman, we'll see what happens with taxes. we will see what happens if anything going forward with the repeal of obamacare. so far you guys have try a few times and we'll keep watching. congressman bratt, thanks very much. >> you bet. anytime. still ahead, we all know about russian interference in the 2016 election, but who says it's going to stop there? lots of worries about 2018, when

we come back. you know who likes to be in control? this guy. check it out! self-appendectomy! oh, that's really attached. that's why i rent from national. where i get the control to choose any car in the aisle i want, not some car they choose for me. which makes me one smooth operator. ah! still a little tender. (vo) go national. go like a pro. let's take a look at some numbers: 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom... is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease? preventable. and 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened and help take control of your health. we're life line screening... and if you're over 50... call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond

regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more.

this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business

the united states postal service. priority: you ♪ still ahead on "mtp daily," fears of a new round of russian interference in 2018, and more on harvey weinstein, but first, hampton pearson has the cnbc market wrap. hi, hampton. >> hi, katy. stocks on wall street finishes at record highs again. the dow gains 42 points. the s&p up 4, the nasdaq closed 16 points higher.

stocks surged after release from the federal release policy meeting signal it may raise interest rates in december and shares of black rock spiked after the company posted better than expected earnings. its assets jumping to almost $6 trillion. a wave of other corporate innings set to be released tomorrow. earnings. that's it from cnbc, first in business worldwide.

when you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, the unpredictability of a flare may weigh on your mind. thinking about what to avoid, where to go, and how to work around your uc. that's how i thought it had to be. but then i talked to my doctor about humira, and learned humira can help get and keep uc under control... when certain medications haven't worked well enough. 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. raise your expectations and ask your gastroenterologist if humira may be right for you. with humira, control is possible.

facebook's coo was on capitol hill today meeting behind closed doors with the bipartisan leaders of the house intelligence committee. the technology news website recode says she's here to do damage control on facebook's russian ad problem. we learned last month that fake russian facebook accounts bought $100,000 worth of political ads during the 2016 election cycle. so far we haven't seen those ads, but today the house intel

leader said that will change soon. since election day more and more information keeps trickling out of silicon valley, in addition to those russian-bought facebook ads we've learned russia linked ads targeting voters in key swing states and revealed facebook enabled advertisers to reach anti-semitic users. and it goes beyond facebook. twitter found 200 accounts linked to the same russian acts agents on facebook and google uncovered russian bought ads on gmail and other platforms. why did it take so long to figure out what happened and are they closer to protecting their platforms before americans head to the polls next year? joining me now is the executive editor of the technology news website re/code and misnbc news contributor. let's start right there. why did it take so long for the tech giants of this country to figure out what happened?

>> well, i think, weeb talked about this before, this slow roll of acknowledging it was a problem as all began last year with mark zuckerberg saying there wasn't any impact and of course as things rolled forward it was shown that they were deeply involved and that the russians were using these platforms, all u.s.-built, if you think about it, taking these plats for and using and abusing them for their purposes to create havoc within the election and within all the communities that they impacted and tried to focus on. from black lives matter to creating all kinds of problems between and among people essentially. >> are they any closer to finding a way to protect their systems? >> you know, these are enormous systems. one of the things not quite written about enough is how big these things are and how many billions of transactions happen every single day. billions and billions of transactions. so these are massive platforms. so that's why they're so easy to infect. i guess it's an infection if you

think about it that way. not just facebook. it's twitter, google -- >> do they not understand how it works and at a loss how to stop it as well? they don't grasp the complexity and totality of the reach they have? >> i think they do, but these companies, i don't know if you've noticed. he act like they're just, gee, shucks, we're just small companies working on these things. then go into the argument about how complex it is to deal with it. that's absolutely true, because the mass amount of data that goes through these systems. at the same time, you know, they should have had tools in place to be able to make this stuff more transparent, to have some idea, a lot of self-serve ad platforms and a general feeling in silicon valley their beilein flat fo benign. so they're not responsible. of course they're responsible for their platforms because you saw what pro publica reported. people are able to take advantage and use them in ways

they aren't anticipated. it's the anticipation that's the problem. >> and regulations on everything. drive a car, wear a seat belt. regulations how fast you can go, how the car gets made to make sure people use them safely. the basic stuff. >> yes. >> i was talking to somebody at facebook the other day and asking about regulations. they said that the company welcomes regulations, but the onus is essentially -- >> hmm. >> welcomes congress saying, here's what we think you should do, but that the onus is on congress. it's not necessarily on them. >> yeah. >> congress needs to do their investigation, figure out what they need and come to them. is it fair for congress just to do that? congress, clearly does not fully understand how these platforms work. we keep saying, extraordinarily complicated. >> silicon valley doesn't want any regulation or wants to self-regulate. the term they use all the time. this is heading towards,

metastasizing into something that can be severe regulation around a lot of these platforms which grew largely because they didn't have regulations. say it about uber or any of them. grow because they're innovative and not heavily regulated. that's a good thing. same time, here are the down side of it. that some of the stuff they should or might be pay be attention to weren't and now need to. no malevolent in it, it's growth for growth's sake and not putting all the guardrails around some of the potential abuses and they brought in sheryl sandberg, she's the big hitter at facebook in terms of being smooth and political. she's had a stint in washington. >> yeah. >> you know, they tried with mark zuckerberg first, with that odd video they had, where, to me, looked like a hostage or something with bad lighting. now bringing in sheryl who does know how to handle political issues, i think, a little better. interesting to see who testifies

on november 1st when all of the companies will testify among each of the companies. whether sheryl or someone else. but, you know, this is just growing, because this investigation is growing and so -- there's got to be a big push by facebook and there has been around p.r., hiring p.r. firms, doing full-page ads, doing an offensive on whethering television. sheryl appears in nine places this week at the "wall street journal," axios and other places. companies pushing to get ahead of what's coming which is some laeg tore scheme around these ads in particular and maybe more. >> got it. i would be remiss if i did not ask you about harvey weinstein. you cover silicone valley. tech companies and the valley in general has grappled with headlines of this nature of their own. of hoar rasment, sexism, problems in the workplace. how is the valley reacting to

weinstein today? >> well, sweaty. i think. i don't know how else to put it. i don't think we have someone of quite this awful piggishness. not sure, how else to put it. a horrible person who behaved abonaably. people are appalled by it and nervous because there will be more of a focus on this kind of behavior, stopping this kind of behavior and paying for this kind of behavior. you know, the bill has come in for this, this kind of stuff, and -- those who perpetrated smudge things will have to pay big and harvey weinstein obviously did. >> and cara, quickly, because i have you. how do you create an environment where women don't feel comfortable or scared to come forward? >> i was talking about this last night. because there's a few stories i've tried to pursue especially around cover-ups. i think he had eight women they paid off essentially. listen, i don't take anything away from the will. it's really hard to talk about

these things publicly. a lot of tech companies covered up behaviors and let people move along, and paid people to do non-disclosure agreements. i think these things are poisonous and i think that the weinstein company should let these women out of this non-disclosure agreements. a lot of that stuff goes on here in silicon valley. same in every industry. that just -- the inability to speak out and not have to pay the price for doing so, something has to change where women can talk -- very clearly, about experiences they have and then things get put into place to stop that from happening going forward, but i don't have an answer unfortunately, but i think disclosure is the first step in this. >> cara swisher, thank you for joining us. >> thanks. and right now, president trump is onstage in harrisburg, pennsylvania discussing his tax reform plan. we'll keep an ear on that and bring you any news from that event. we will be right back.

you nervous? ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ hey. what can you tell me about your new social security alerts? oh! we'll alert you if we find your social security number on any one of thousands of risky sites, so you'll be in the know. ooh. sushi. ugh. being in the know is a good thing. sign up online for free. discover social security alerts. that can fix itself?

is that the work of wizards? yes. technical wizards. who, with the visionary engineers at ge, developed predix- giving plane engines the ability to self-diagnose problems, and alert those who can fix them. and that's no illusion. magic can't make digital transformation happen. but we can. that's the power of pivotal, part of dell technologies. right now president trump is on the road pitching his tax plan in harrisburg, pennsylvania, speaking at the air national guard base. for the trucking industry. we'll bring you headlines that come out of his speech. more "mtp daily," next. o an audiobook on audible. and this guy is just trying to get through the day. this guy feels like he can take on anything.

this guy isn't sure he can take it anymore. unwavering self-confidence. stuck in a 4-door sedan of sadness. upgrade your commute. ride with audible. dial star star audible on your smartphone to start listening today.

about to see progressive's new home quote explorer. where you can compare multiple quote options online and choose what's right for you. woah. flo and jamie here to see hqx. flo and jamie request entry. slovakia. triceratops. tapioca. racquetball. staccato. me llamo jamie. pumpernickel. pudding. employee: hey, guys! home quote explorer. it's home insurance made easy. password was "hey guys." .

time for "the lid." the panel is back. i've been talking about this with women for the past few days so michael, i'll going to you first. harvey weinstein. how does the culture change to where women feel comfortable coming out saying, this happened to me, it is not right. and this person, however powerful they may be, is the one who did it. >> we all have a responsibility to pull the culture in that direction. it is not just the expectation that women are doing it by themselves. that it takes 20 years for them to get into a position where they can begin to talk about something they've carried. we as a nation of men and women have to recognize how we look at women in this culture. how we treat we will in this culture and what our expectation when they're in this situation. our expectation is that you will be a good girl and you will keep your mouth shut and you won't say anything. that's what they're taught and that is what has been taught. now with more and more women taking control of this narrative as much as they can, i think

that's an important part of this. >> are we turning a corner? >> i'm optimistic. it is painful to read about but i am optimistic that so many women including gintwyneth palt and angelina jolie, that gives so many women the courage to say it happened to me. even if you waited a long time. even if you didn't want to do it. i think people understand, you are not to blame the woman that held back and didn't want to talk about it publicly. that is like part of being, of the difficulty that they went through. but i think a lot of women who were in that situation were told, be a man about it. don't make it seem lying it bothers you. if you made it seem like they bothered you, they won. thats what we have to get at. that we don't all need to act like men do when they're in power for a woman to be in

power. >> we're struggling with it but i feel like this is progress. >> this transcends industries. this is not about hollywood. this goes across the board. just being a woman in society. you deal with it all the time. do you think, susan, that there are any glaring areas where we do need to continue on focus heavily on it? >> well, look. i don't want to rain on jen's optimism. it is good to have that every once in a while. but i think it is not just a matter of culture. not only was it an all male board in this particular instance in hollywood, but look at the numbers of women who are leading these companies, any companies in the united states of america today. look at the way, the lack of accountability functioned here. you could say on the one hand, it is important and empowering that women finally came forward. it took a heroic effort, both

journalistic and personal, to do so after decades. you could flip this around and say, it is a story about the horrifying lack of accountability. not only the toxic culture of sex pitch is allowed to occur but because women are not in positions of power or empowered. this went on for so long. and it goes on in so many other places with less scrutiny where people won't spend huge amounts of resources and investigative reporters to uncover this everyday sexual harassment that may be during without famous names behind it. >> there could be a tendency to write off the person and saying maybe they have sour grapes or something. that's where the culture has to change. we can talk more about this but we have run out of time. thank you. appreciate it. after the break, america takes a kick in the pants.

i've been thinking. think of all the things that think these days. businesses are thinking. factories are thinking. even your toaster is thinking. honey, clive owen's in our kitchen. i'm leaving. oh nevermind, he's leaving. but what if a business could turn all that thinking... thinking... endless thinking into doing. to make better decisions. make a difference. make the future. not next week while you think about it a little more. but right now. is there a company that can help you do all that? ( ♪ ) i can think of one.

we're on a mission to show drip coffee drinkers, it's time to wake up to keurig. wakey! wakey! rise and shine! oh my gosh! how are you? well watch this. i pop that in there. press brew. that's it. so rich. i love it. that's why you should be a keurig man! full-bodied. are you sure you're describing the coffee and not me? anyone who calls it a hobby doesn't understand. we know that a person's passion is what drives them. [ clapping ] and that's why every memorial we create is a true reflection of the individual. only a dignity memorial professional can celebrate a life like no other. find out how at sanfranciscodignity.com.

in case you missed it, the united states will not to have deal with the potential for heart break of the world cup in russia next summer because it won't be participating. it will be the first one missed by the u.s. men's team since 1986. they lost last night to last place trinidad in tobaggo. it lost to a country roughly the size of maine. the men came up embarrassingly short. we are less than two years away

from the woman's soccer world cup in france. women are america's real soccer powerhouse. the u.s. women will be set to defend their 2015 cup championship and go for their fourth all time title. so there is a chance for u.s. soccer glory on the horizon. that's good news. that will be all for tonight. we'll be back tomorrow with more "mtp daily." my buddy ari has "the beat." >> we have new ethics problems for the trump administration. a breaking report that steve bannon told an associate, there is a 70% chance that trump will not finish the out this term as president. pretty explosive. later in the hour, my message for mark zuckerberg on puerto rico. our top storyve