cnbc reports the drop comes amid reports the senate plan would delay the corporate tax cut until 2019. we'll pursue this tomorrow in greater detail. "deadline white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. one of the central questions at the heart of the investigation into donald trump's campaign and potential ties to russia -- do the russians have something on donald trump? something they can hold over him? something that makes him feel indebted to them? something that explains the fact that donald trump has been more generous to vladimir putin than to his own sitting attorney general jeff sessions who he has called weak. an insult he's never leveled against vladimir putin. today nbc news is learning the president's former bodyguard keith schiller testified before the house intelligence committee this week that before the miss universe pageant in 2013, a russian participant offered to

send five women to donald trump's hotel room in moscow. the president's former bodyguard testified he viewed the offer as a joke and responded at the time, quote, we don't do that type of stuff. joining me now to detail his reporting is nbc news investigative and national security reporter ken deadliila. in talking to some sources on the hill, it's clear that the significance of this is not just the fact of it but they are clearly pursuing and trying to either corroborate or knock down the very salacious allegations in the dossier. >> i couldn't agree with you more. and that's exactly the significance of this. in fairness, keith schiller, donald trump's longtime bodyguard has essentially refuted under oath this salacious allegation that donald trump was cavorting with prostitutes in his hotel room that night at the ritz-carlton

moscow. what he said was at a business meeting in the morning with -- around 15 people, and this is according to three sources in the room, some russian who was there made this offer to schiller, hey, can we send five women to donald trump's hotel room and schiller took it as a joke but also said, no, we don't operate like that or some words to that effect. >> i've got it right here. schiller responded, quote, we don't do that type of stuff. >> that's right. >> does that sound right? that's from your reporting. >> yep. >> and that he did, though, in his testimony, make clear that when he and the now president, then private businessman, laughed about this on the way to their room. and then he left him at the door to his hotel room. is that as far as your reporting goes today? >> yes. but the crucial issue there is that democrats were drilling down with schiller, as i understand it, on the fact that eventually he left that hotel

room and went to bed in his own room. he couldn't say for sure what happened for the rest of the night at donald trump's hotel room, although he testified he was pretty confident nothing happened. but that's where it stands. >> let me ask you about this line of questioning. it seems if the house hotel committee run by a republican is still bringing in witnesses who can speak to donald trump's activities in russia and with russia and russians in 2013, they are not only still running down the allegations in the dossier, but they, along with bob mueller, are looking at the potential financial entanglements between donald trump the businessman and russia. >> yeah, i think that's a fair assessment. and, look, keetith schiller has been with donald trump since 2002, i believe. so knows more than anybody about trump's movements, his meetings, what he's saying to people. there were a lot of things they asked him about.

the june 2016 trump tower meet, and he had very little memory of that. he doesn't remember who donald trump jr. met with that day. it's really significant that they are drilling down at this late date in the investigation on what happened back in 2013 in moscow because -- and it shows that the dossier, much maligned by the white house and trump surrogates, is very much a road map to this investigation. not all of it is true. much of it may not be true, but it's viewed as a credible road map. >> let me ask you one more thing. put donald trump aside for a moment. tactic itself. a russian businessperson offering to send five women to an american businessman's hotel room. obviously, the tactic was familiar enough. your reporting also has a line in which donald trump and mr. schiller discuss amongst themselves that there may be cameras in the room. >> that's right. in fact, counterintelligence officials have told us that that hotel in particular is notorious as a honey trap, wired for sound

and video by the russian intelligence services. and the message we got from sources familiar with schiller's testimony was that he expressed he was well aware of that and donald trump was well aware of that, arguing why what the dossier said happened probably didn't happen. but you're right. it's an absolute tactic of the russian intelligence services and the other thing to say about this is, you know, i'm not sure i can imagine the same kind of offer made even in jest to barack obama or george w. bush. >> i'm going to stay silent on that, but i agree with you. we've got a lot more russian news to get to. let me bring my panel in. joining us, kimberly atkins, chief washington reporter for the boston herald. john heilemann, the nbc news and msnbc national affairs analyst, alex, republican strategist and former communications strategist for marco rubio and maya. with us from florida, former republican congressman david

jolley whose twitter feed i've become even more addicted to in the last 48 hours. we're talking about women, russia and the dossier. >> all my specialties. >> i didn't say that. you did. go. >> well, i -- ken dilanian's report is super interesting and you draw the right conclusions. the only thing i take any issue with is ken made a point about this being a late date in the investigation. i don't think we're at a late date. everything we now see, not just on -- in the senate and house, the mueller investigation and this other investigation that's happening in the intelligence community with the fbi, we are -- this is the investigation is, i think, metastasizing. it's getting bigger. new names coming in all the time. the date window seems to be getting larger and larger and wider and wider. with the release of the paradise papers, we're now looking at information about a big, huge, corrupt shadow banking system about offshore tax havens. many of them that touch on russian oligarchs and the tax

avoidance schemes the global elite, the.001% engage in. people like wilbur ross who is implicated in those papers. this story is getting bigger, more consequential and more wide ranging every day. and i don't think we're about to wind this up any time soon. i think this -- bigger and more serious, not just for donald trump but for the whole complex of trump's orbit and the way we gather intelligence and how, what russia's role is in american life. >> let me ask you something about that. because you -- what you are articulating suggests to me that perhaps the climate has changed and where donald trump and his surrogates had gone out and suggested that his businesses were off limits a few months ago, that seems like a politically untenable argument. >> i think -- i don't believe there's very much appetite for that argument anymore. even among republicans privately and some publicly, you've seen republicans on the house side. trey gowdy who has been swatting this investigation away for

months. now they're suddenly taking it more seriously. engaged in serious interrogation of people like carter page. suddenly gowdy is acting like a prosecutor. goodlatte. republicans previously dismissing this are now saying, as it gets bigger and more consequential and beyond the white house even, people are -- some element, some sense of bipartisan concern, kind of almost extensial level seems to be creeping in and we're starting to see people not make some of the silly arguments they were making like forget about the old base. who cares about what trump did in russia 20 years ago. that stuff all matters. >> there was this ludicrous equivalence drawn by then chairman nunez about unmasking. he steams have now -- i'm not sure if he has the capacity for shame but that argument doesn't seem to be front and center anywhere other than on a few select conservative media outlets. >> republicans want to move beyond this. they want to find out what happened so that we don't have

russia meddling in future elections but we want to move on. what was strike -- >> how do you move on if -- >> you put out all the facts and let the chips fall where they may. what's striking is that we're just learning about this now. we've known about the dossier for months. why has the trump white house not come out and says this is what happened that night and told the story that the bodyguard told the hill this week? why haven't they told that story publicly months ago? they know it's going to come out. >> he was subpoenaed. >> get ahead of it. >> they've not put out anything except when they've been subpoenaed. >> they need to get out in front of the story. >> he doesn't have a real doctor. he's got like a fake -- what has he ever done that's made you -- >> i'm not making predictions. i'm telling you what they should do. get ahead of it or it's going to continue to metastasize and take over the presidency. >> they've never been forthcoming with any information and this is why the story also -- >> west wing is cooperate with

the mueller report. >> let me tell you what i know. >> his aides have not been subpoenaed. >> but the documents were -- it's not like they opened up the doors and says come in. >> the west wing is cooperate with mueller by all accounts. however, still not being clear with the public we should not find out what happened from the mueller report. if i was in the white house, i'd make sure there's not a single new piece of information in that report. get the bad news out now on your own terms. they have yet to do that at any turn of this investigation. >> they haven't done it at any turn of the investigation. that's good advice except they're not following it. and what it has created for them is an appearance for them that they're just not credible because they're not honest. they haven't been forthcoming. trump for months said that no one he knew had been involved with russian contacts. and now here we are -- >> a guy that carter page told

he was going to russia. >> at least nine people who have had these contacts during the transition during the campaign and potentially during the white house. i think that is their fundamental problem. they haven't been forthcoming. they don't actually reveal the facts until the media has the facts and when the facts are revealed they always make some excuse for why they're not true or just now coming out. >> the political line has always been fake news, it's discredited, it's wrong. the more it is vetted and the more that investigators find out truthful parts of it, some parts have been verified. many parts have not. that works against that narrative as well. >> and the thing with the dossier has always been that if even 10% of it turns out to be true, he's in a lot of trouble. >> it is. it's very problematic for this investigation, for this white house. and the closer is gets, one of the biggest things is that investigators are talking to someone like schiller who has been by donald trump's side for a very long time.

hope hicks will be going in soon. she has been with him since the trump administration. very close inner circle people are now in the spotlight of this investigation and the closer that it gets, i think the hotter that the spotlight becomes. >> congressman, let me ask you about the effect of the shellacking that republicans took in virginia on sort of the appetite for participating in any smear campaign against the character of bob mueller. do you think republicans feel a little bit more independent or fortified from this white house so that they would at least do what alex and folks at the table are suggesting? let mueller and his folks and the committee finish their investigation? >> for depends which congressional district. the deep red district in florida calls on mueller to be fired. but if you're barbara comstock in virginia, you'll take a much more independent approach. what you've been talking about, donald trump is not going to fall politically because russia

has some evidence of sexual indiscretions. this is a president who has already bragged about sexual assault on the "access hollywood" tapes. but that is a political question that he continues to wrestle with and hide from. this is where mueller comes in. there's a reason donald trump has not revealed his tax returns. there's a reason they are pushing back and saying there's a line that can't be crossed regarding his business dealings. it is clear they are protecting some type of financial or business relationship between the trump organization and russians. and how that relationship has influenced donald trump's decision-making through this point i think is obvious to people. bob mueller is going to be finally the man that gets to the bottom of it. >> heilemann, you want to weigh in on that? >> which part? >> i think the fact this is so interesting to hear that -- and i guess this is -- it's depressing and refreshingly honest that he's an admitted and

self-described grabber of you know what. so who cares what happened in hotel room in russia. that to david jolly's mind, the most interesting thing about ken dilanian's reporting isn't that the offer of five women to his hotel room were rejected. it's that the republican-led house intel committee is still pursuing the other allegations in the dossier. >> that's 100% right. although ken made the point he didn't think this offer would have been made to george w. bush or barack obama, that's probably true. donald trump wasn't president. i think these types of offers are made to powerful businessmen in moss ku all the time. people have priced into the stock a lot of trump's bad behavior on the personal side. but the reality is this dossier which the white house continues to say has been thoroughly discredited. much of it remains unverified. some of it has been proven true. and i believe nothing in it -- i can't think of a single thing that's been thoroughly discredited.

like we know is false. that's a road map that's still being used, i believe, in every investigation people still regard that document as valuable in terms of the leads its generating and story lines that are pursued and run down. that is an incredibly important, meaningful thing. and again, these congressional investigators are nowhere near as important as mueller is in the outcome of this. at the same time, to your point earlier, the fact they continue to not drive towards a quick conclusion, that no one is trying to shut them down right now. they seem to be widening their scope. continues to pose the possibility that this will run -- will be a running issue through the midterm elections in 2018 and possibly beyond. >> ken, is there any awareness among the republican members of those committees that they may not be running those committees if the midterm goes the other way? if virginia portends some political reality out there and i don't know who the ranking member is on house intel but if the democrats are to take over

these committees, that the republicans better make sure they act with integrity in these investigations? >> the ranking democrat is adam schiff of california. >> how could i forget? >> there is an awareness of that. and i think so far we've seen a pretty -- in both the senate and house, a bipartisan agreement. one of the reasons this story was so hard to dig out is because there was a bipartisan agreement not to talk about the witnesses. anyone who talked about it was violating committee rules. they are working together. the devin nunes stuff has been put to the stuff. mike conaway, the republican and adam schiff have been working together on this investigation and they seem to be driving on the same page. the other point i wanted to add, to your point earlier with john about will mueller look at trump's past finances? i spoke to someone close to mueller in the last few days and asked that question. isn't there a limit to what he can do going back into the past looking at trump's real estate

deals. absolutely not. if they find a crime, they'll p pursue it, no matter where it leads. >> ken dilanian, thank you. my apologies to ranking member schiff for forgetting that. when we come back, breaking news from "the washington post" about gop senate candidate roy moore of alabama and allegations of sexual misconduct with teenage girls. just one month before the special election there. also ahead -- the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee bob corker who has openly questioned the president's stability and competence has convened a hearing to review president trump's access to the nuclear codes. we'll go inside the efforts to safeguard america from a president whose loose talk on nukes keeps many national security experts up late at night. stay with us. i don't want to sound paranoid, but d'ya think our recent online sales success seems a little... strange? na. ever since we switched to fedex ground business has been great. they're affordable and fast... maybe "too affordable and fast."

what if... "people" aren't buying these books online, but "they" are buying them to protect their secrets?!?! hi bill. if that is your real name. it's william actually. hmph! affordable, fast fedex ground. so we know how to cover almost almoanything.hing even a swing set standoff. and we covered it, july first, twenty-fifteen. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ psoriatic arthritis tries to get in my way? ♪ watch me. ♪ i've tried lots of things for my joint pain. now? watch me. ♪

think i'd give up showing these guys how it's done? please. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are changing the way they fight it... they're moving forward with cosentyx®. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. it's proven to help people find less joint pain and clearer skin. don't use if you are allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms of an infection. or if you have received a vaccine, or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. with less joint pain, watch me. for less joint pain and clearer skin, ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx.

"the washington post" is out this afternoon with a detailed account of sexual misconduct from gop senate candalate roy moore from alabama. the post report includes acco t accounts of moore approaching women as young as 14 and inviting them to his house where he engaged in sexual acts. in a statement today, moore called the allegations by the post completely false and a desperate political attack. in the post account, one of his accusers tells the post, quote, i have prayed over this. all i know is that i can't sit back and let this continue, let him continue without the mask being removed. gop senators on capitol hill reacted with swift condemnation. >> if true, does he need to step down? >> if there is any shred of truth to these stories, he ought

to step aside, and now. >> would he be fit to serve in the senate if this was true? >> no, no, no. if there's any shred of truth, he ought to step aside immediately. >> well, i don't know. it's a devastating, nasty story. if the revelations, if that's true, i don't tlbl would be any place for him in the u.s. senate. >> if these allegations are true, roy moore should step aside for all the obvious reasons. very disturbing allegations. >> very, very disturbing what i've read about it. i'll have more to say about it, i'm sure, after i learn more. >> if they're true, step aside. >> obviously, serious. what i've heard of them, again, i haven't read it. it's very serious. >> let's get to "washington post" reporter michael scherrer and garrett haake joins us. your paper, i think, quotes close to 30 sources. these are accounts that go back

to roy moore's time as a 30-year-old man who approached women in their teens. the piece starts with a 14-year-old who he approached and made an arrangement to pick her up in his car. took her to his home and they engaged in sexual activity. can you detail some of the other allegations in "the post" story for our viewers? >> there's allegations he would approach women at a shopping mall in gadsden, the town where he worked as an assistant district attorney and also that he approached young women after speaking at high school events. at the time he was a well-known person in what's a relatively small community. vietnam veteran, someone looked up to in the community and a quote from one of the mothers of one of these girls who was approached. she went to her mother and said if someone like roy moore asked me out, what would you say? and the mother said i'd say you're the luckiest girl in the world.

so by these girls' accounts and they are corroborated by people they talked to at the time including their mothers, in some cases, you know, he had a lot of sway at the time. >> it reads, garrett, like the original reporting about harvey weinstein with a news outlet being so meticulous, getting all of the details right because you don't put something like this out there about anyone, but particularly a month before the election. and that doesn't seem to have been lost on the republican senators that you and our colleague kasie hunt tracked down today. >> yeah, it was interesting. there was a race to condemn roy moore with that caveat of, if this is true and then a race to get out of town. the senate not expected to have any votes tomorrow. a lot of these senators were on their way out of here. it's important to point out, all these women were interviewed on the record. so the question about if this is true really demands a follow-up of, do you believe these women's

account and what more information would you need to get from if he did these things it's inappropriate to, yes, it's inappropriate. and so far the only republican senator who has crossed that bridge has been john mccain who put out a paper statement saying this is unacceptable and sort of withheld the whole if part of this. roy moore is not fit to serve in the senate. i came from a photo spray with mitch mcconnell. i asked three times to ask him that question if he thought these women's account were believable. if he believed these women, and he wouldn't answer. while there's a race from establishment folks to distance themselves from roy moore, there's some folks still not entirely ready to throw him overboard on the strength of this reporting alone, it seems. >> david, does that depress you based on your comment in the last block? >> yeah, it does. roy moore will be judged by his god and by these women who have come out with these stories. it's a little too late for the law probably to judge him, but the bigger story is how does the republican party respond to this?

and you have seen some equivocating. they want to be quick to denounce it if it's true, but the reality is, it appears, the alabama republican party can withdraw their nomination of him, even though his name is already on the ballot. do other people come forward like john mccain and say this was a bridge too far? or -- and we cannot overlook the impact of this president spending two years yelling fake news. does the republican party embrace themselves in this mantra that you can't trust the mainstream media, even though the reporting on this is remarkable. for viewers who have not read the story, the details in it are remarkable. and it will be heartbreaking to see the party begin to wrap themselves in this fake news mantra to try to protect roy moore, if they choose to do it, and perhaps they won't. >> garrett, let me ask you to follow up on this. if his name is still on the ballot, could he still win this election in a month? >> sure, it's entirely possible. the last credible polling out of alabama had him up 10 or 11 points over the democrat doug

jones. there's already been some talk here on capitol hill, lisa murkowski, you remember, won her race in alaska after losing in a primary. she's been encouraging luther strange who roy moore beat in the republican primary to try to run in a run-off. it's possible you could have some weird three or four-way split here. but moore has doubled down on this idea that this is fake news, that it's defamatory. some backup from breitbart who scooped the post from their own story. and no one can take roy moore's name out of this. it can't come off the ballot. no one can take roy moore out of this race, except roy moore. he's made a career out of frustrating establishment republicans. so pressure from establishment republicans alone is probably not going to do it. >> michael, you traveled with him. yeah, go ahead. >> i would just say the state party has the power to ask the secretary of state to disqualify moore from the ballot. his name would still appear on

the ballot, but if he's disqualified before the election, any votes cast for him would not count. and then you could also foresee if that happened the republican party running a write-in campaign and someone like luther strange could try and run a write-in campaign against doug jones, the democrat there. or have them try to recruit another candidate. but that is a possibility in this race. >> let me ask you, having spent time in the state with the candidate, what do you think the odds are that if his name remains on the ballot, they don't take those steps you're describing, do you think he still wins? >> it's a very republican state. it's the most republican state, by some measures in the country. and there were some concerns before the primary was over that roy moore would make it difficult for republicans to hold onto that seat. doug jones is by all accounts running a very good campaign. the only path doug jones has to winning is by winning over other

republicans. doug jones cannot win with democratic turnout. the answer to that question will be in what republican voters decide in the state of alabama over the next four weeks. >> michael, congratulations to your colleagues on this incredibly detailed and important reporting. garrett, thank you for rounding up all that reaction on the hill. i appreciate both of you spending time with us. we'll sneak in a break and the panel will react after that. [ click ] [ keyboard clacking ] [ clacking continues ] good questions lead to good answers. our advisors can help you find both. talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future. yours. talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future. ...you might be missing to stasomething... ♪ ...your eyes. that's why there's ocuvite. it helps replenish nutrients your eyes can lose as you age. nourish your eyes to help keep them healthy.

ocuvite. be good to your eyes.

do you want the same tools and seamless experience across web and tablet? yes? great! then you're ready for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. sweet! e*trade. the original place to invest online.

we're back with our panel. kimberly atkins, this is a story that is now like a contagion. every single area of public life from entertainment to academia to our company, to now a senate race. >> absolutely. the weinstein scandal has sort of, in one way, allowed more women to come forward and feel empowered enough to tell these stories. and at least so far, nobody has -- i haven't heard anybody outright call them a liar.

they're saying maybe it's true, maybe it's not, which isn't good either. it's a problem for the republican party if it's not a presumption that you believe a woman when she says that she is the victim of some sort of sexual impropriety. but it's moving on. and you'd think it's still taking a long time. i always think about, i thought we had these conversations after clarence thomas with anita hill and about appropriateness and how you deal. the fact it's a quarter century later and we're still in this new awakening again reminding everybody what this is about is a little disappointing. >> i bet every republican senator on camera saying if true, he doesn't have a place here, believes they were doing the right thing. i bet every one of them wanted to do and say the right thing but they have no idea but taking a story in which all the women spoke on the record about something that was, at best, embarrassing, at worst, humiliating and potentially worse that they made it harder for the next accuser. >> yeah, i think people

underestimate how difficult this is for women to come forward. and then how they are treated when they come forward is really important and a big signal for whether or not other women will continue to come forward. so often what you see in these situations, why didn't she come forward before? and there are many reasons women don't come forward before. they're embarrassed, ashamed, they are worried that people won't believe them. they might lose their jobs. so there are reasons why women don't come forward. so how we handle these situations is critical in terms of whether or not women will feel safe and continue to do that. in this situation, republicans politicize this down the line at their peril. if they were to politicize it. roy moore -- i am saying that would be at their peril. and it seems that since the weinstein allegations have come out that the republicans have taken the turn in terms of the

ones who have come out to speak out about it. that's the right thing to do. this is not a partisan issue. this is a serious issue and we all need to take it seriously and take it seriously across party lines. >> so this alabama vote now a month away in december is like a big deal now. >> yeah. >> and we're in this moment that we've all been talking about where we're in this moment of national reckoning. suddenly a major party nominee for the united states senate who has been accused in a very credible way. alabama, the virginia results and tuesday night's results, a lot of democrats were saying, should we go and fight against roy moore who had a lot of weaknesses. and we're still a little reluctant about going down for that race. i imagine quickly democrats will say this is a race we can win and we're going to go down there. whether we get write-in candidates or not, the question of whether it's possible that that alabama, one of the most conservative states in the

country, this candidate, whether this could be one of the most vivid symbols of this moment were to be if roy moore were to lose and send an incredible signal to the country about the political consequences of this and a big symbolic moment of this broader cultural moment we're having. >> david jolly, how important is it to the republican party that roy moore not prevail? >> well, to the long-term viability of the party, it's very important. in the short term this complicates going into '18 and to republicans have to now spend money in a state they never would have had to spend money for just to keep the senate. long term, look at some of the responses, the defenses coming out of republican elected officials in alabama right now who are circling the wagons saying there's nothing wrong with this. maybe she was a teenager. maybe he was 32. there's nothing wrong with it. and they are already beginning to skewer the women. so what does that mean to the likes of barbara comstock, to more purple states? we're going to be wrefstling wih

todd akin-like comments at a time we're facing huge trump headwinds and likely losing the congress. this just piles onto it. >> one of the headlines out of tuesday night's shellacking for republicans up and down the ballot was that women roared back. and will marco rubio accept -- would you predict, you were his communications director. would you advise him to go farther than saying if true and saying, would you walk in there and show him the story and say all these women are on the record in this story. it is true. these women have gone on the record with -- there is no benefit to a woman when she accuses a man of sexually harassing her. particularly if she admits to something that happened so long ago. >> i 100% agree. there can be no tolerance for this in the republican party. full stop. there can be -- we knts accept candidates who have these credible allegations. you already saw all the republican senators going out trying to distance themselves from him. i think that will just grow,

unless -- >> but do they need to go a step further and say, i believe the women? >> i think they should, yeah, absolutely. this is -- to me, this is simple. if we're playing defense on this issue, we will never win another election anywhere. and it's not even a political issue. it's just about doing the right thing. >> congressman jolly, what's your prediction about the likelihood that en masse every republican comes out by the end of the day and says i believe the women in "the washington post" story? >> i think it's highly unlikely. and roy moore has suggested he's going to double down. his constituency in alabama has lived through some of his racist and homophobic comments, and i think the politics of alabama might protect him on this one but republicans are going to have a real price to pay when it comes to other races around the country as a result of it. >> this also seems like the disease that you die of when you infect the body with the fake

news attack. >> yeah. i mean, there's so much that's so wrong about this, and so many of the problems the republican party has created for itself, that it suffers, the problems it creates for itself. this fake news argument is convenient and, to some part of the republican constituency, some part of the republican base is obviously appealing. but it's toxic in a million ways, and when it starts to touch about on issues like this, it could have negative political consequences such as the fact that roy moore's existence in this race is a toxic side effect of steve bannon's sudden rise and his broader strategy to put people like this who are not the kind of candidates you'd want to be representing the party. these are all coming to a head now. not just the problems that trump has brought to the party but the ways in which some of the trump toxins are seeping out, whether it's the bannon toxin, fake news toxin. it's all creating this kind of deadly, i think, deadly disease

that may be deadly not just in 2018 but may be the -- lead to the ultimate demise of the republican party as we know it. >> is it your prediction, i saw a breitbart interview on this network where they were carving out the sexual misconduct with a 14-year-old as the only thing in the post story that was truly criminal. do you predict that conservative media will circle the wagons around roy moore? >> i believe at the very least they'll try to change the subject and avoid it. the same way when there's new information about the russia investigation they tend to try to avoid that and focus on hillary clinton and all her ills. we'll at least see that. and if they do try to circle around him, that would be really unfortunate, but again, in the fake news era, we may see that. >> we'll be watching. >> bob corker's most forceful move yet to protect the country from donald trump's impulses if necessary.

your brain is an amazing thing. but as you get older, it naturally begins to change, causing a lack of sharpness, or even trouble with recall. thankfully, the breakthrough in prevagen helps your brain and actually improves memory. the secret is an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.

ray's always been different. last year, he said he was going to dig a hole to china. at&t is working with farmers to improve irrigation techniques. remote moisture sensors use a reliable network to tell them when and where to water. so that farmers like ray can compete in big ways. china. oh ... he got there. that's the power of and.

the markets change... at t. rowe price... our disciplined approach remains. global markets may be uncertain... but you can feel confident in our investment experience around the world. call us or your advisor... t. rowe price. invest with confidence.

the president has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful. i think secretary tillerson and secretary mattis and chief of staff kelly are those people that help separate our country from chaos. and i support them very much. >> when bob corker questioned president trump's competence and stability, democrats and republicans alike asked, what's he going to do about it? today we have our answer. a day after donald trump warned north korea not to, quote, underestimate us and not to, quote, try ubob corker called for a hearing.

corker saying, a number of members both on and off our committee have raised questions about the authorities of legislative and executive branches with respect to war making, the use of nuclear weapons and conducting foreign policy overall. this discussion is long overdue and we look forward to examining this critical issue. corker noted that it's been more than 40 years since the country has debated a president's nuclear authority. and on the heels of his stinging rebuke of the president's tauntss against his own justice department and fbi, almost exactly a week ago and his description of the white house as adult day care, it should surprise no one that this one-man guardrail on long-held national security norms has convened this hearing. hans nichols joins us from the pentagon along with kevin barron from defense one. let me start with you. i am told by a source familiar with senator corker's thinking that while many of these debates are overdue and you'll hear a lot of, i think, probably spin

in the days leading up to tuesday's hearing that it's been really since the bush presidency that we debated as a country, military authority that if donald trump wasn't the president, this hearing would not be taking place on tuesday. >> that's exactly right. there's no doubt about that. we've heard that from nuclear watchers. just today, our organization had -- our defense one summit. we had not only one of the top nuclear watchdogs who you're familiar with on this show, but we had the ops director from strategic command. the j-3. the two-star general who has a finger on the button. the country is talking about nuclear weapons and nuclear war like it hasn't in some time. that's true. and a lot of external reasons for that. but going as far as strike authorities, first strike authorities, questioning the president's competency, that is specific to donald trump and it's mostly coming out of democrats. corker is this new exception. and, frankly, congress is a little behind on it. we've had watchdogs and lots of

observers in the real national security core community in washington, across both parties, who have raised serious concerns about donald trump, the man, having his finger on the button when the u.s. law is what it is. he has that authority. now he doesn't have it alone. there is -- he does have people in the room that does advise him on what to do. but it is his power alone. and there's also some -- last thing to say, to separate the difference between the authority to respond to nuclear strike, which even the military officials who stand up policy will say that must be -- rapid fire. must be quick. minutes to respond. that's different than the ability for first strike, which is, you know, that's a doctrine that goes back to the cold war. >> let me play something for you, hans nichols, that general hayden says on "morning joe" over the summer. we'll talk about it on the other side. >> the steps donald trump decides to use a nuclear weapon, what is the time frame between his decision and when the nuclear weapons are launched?

>> joe, it's scenario dependent, but the system is designed for speed and decisiveness, not to debate the decision. >> let me read you one more thing before we dive into this together. politico, a piece on nuclear authorization wrote that unilateral launch authority is so powerful, so unchecked and so scary that years before watergate, nixon had turned it into its own geopolitical strategy. the so-called madman theory with which he threatened the soefvie and vietnamese. we have a lot of conversations about a lot of things that happened on this president's watch that are outside of the norms. but i think this might be the first time where a republican has convened his committee, the senate foreign relations committee, to put a check on presidential powers that could have forever -- could change

forever the power of the american presidency. >> the idea of a responsive response, and a responsive attack to nuclear incoming missile really dates back to the eisenhower administration. that is, you do need to decide within minutes if deterrence theory is going to work. deterrence theory, mutually asserted destruction. if the russians lob missiles at the u.s., the u.s. will lob missiles in return at russia. it gets dark very quickly. you hear that around here. it has been effective. there hasn't been a major war between the united states and russia. what seems to me the conversation on capitol hill is what something kevin alluded to. that's the idea of restraining the president, any president's ability to do a first strike with a nuclear weapon. that's something entirely difference than the sort of reactive issue that general hayden was speaking about. >> let me take it back to you on this question of donald trump's presidency and questions about his competence and his stability.

now really testing decades-long systems. the way that we protect ourselves. the way we advance our security presence in the world is based on this premise you described. our first strike capability. canfirst-strike capability. can you talk about what people inside defense circles would say if the power of an american presidency were limited because of donald trump? >> well, before it gets to that point i think that it's -- it's worth noting that there is a conversation in defense circles right now about what would happen if president trump decided to order that first strike. a pre-emptive nuclear strike. few people believe that would happen. talking a major hypothetical. ambassador saying she didn't think donald trump or kim jong-un wants a nuclear war, that there's a lot of posturing going on. that could happen anyway, rebuilding. but the fact people are talking

about it. wondering would the generals go through with it? today we heard from the general, one of the guys, it's his job to press that button, figuratively saying, look, if it's a lawful order i'm going to obey it. i'm a soldier. a discussion outside of the military's realm. >> let me follow-up with you on that, hans. i talked to a trump confidant who said in other country generals around the head of state had this much power, more respect of the principal among the general public, there would be concerns in the national security establishment about things being out of whack. it what we saw in the attempt with turkey. what do people say in that building, that there are questions about the american chief? >> they always go back to the

election. you hear it time and time against inside that building's that decision to empower donald trump, making him the 46th president of the united states, they will follow orders. in a hypothetical, admiral swift, head of the pacific fleet answered the question. given the orders, he would carry them out. the two-star general, throw out the four-star general, just got a briefing with from here. he mentioned at any given time 30,000 airmen ready to go to protect the president and have some sort of responsive nuclear strike if the u.s. is hit. it's on the minds of officials, something they train for, plan for, and it's something that they're ready for. nicolle? >> go ahead. >> consider the opposite. >> go ahead. >> this is also about civilian control. one scenario people have referenced that i've heard, the cuban missile crisis. the chiefs recommended kennedy should go into cuba and kennedy

alone made the decision not to. we know how historic this was. the american people elected this man to be president and even if corker has a hearing and even if there's a consensus the united states should change the rules, regardless of trump. change the rules that no president no man on earth should have that kind of nuclear power for the good of humanity. the idea of that's hassing any tooi anytime soon with this congress, they could hardly pass anything, much less anything this serious is a reality we'll get to. we're talking worth hypotheticals that go back to last year's election. the american people put this man in power at this moment with this arsenal. >> thank you both so much. john heilemann, your thoughts, how difficult to separate personal assessments as the adult day care, the generals,

kelly, mattis and -- kelly as sort of his keepers and this hearing on tuesday? >> i think it's impossible to separate them on some level. i memban, you're in a strange circumstance here in the sense that many people who profoundly believe in the notion of civilian control, and that -- many people who under normal circumstances would be uncomfortable with the degree of influence a group of generals has right now over the, the white house broadly speaking but particularly american national security and foreign policy. many of those people, because of their judgments of trump, i don't think bob corker is remotely close to alone in having judgment about trump's stability, his mental and psychological temperament, his fitness to be the person who has control over nuclear weapons, a lot of those people are torn by profound commitments to control and trump and find themselves in

an awkward position, i'm glad the generals are there. i don't think a structuretural change will be made and useful in raising profound issues but i don't think, not just because of of political situations but hard to imagine what an alternative system is to retain civilian control and yet not have it rest with the president. hard to imagine what that alternative would be. i don't think we'll get there but i do think it's useful corker is raising these issues and illuminate a broadser set of issues not just the question of who has their finger on the button. >> and dances around what we need to put out in the country, that donald trump isn't able to have control of the nuclear powers? >> does he focus on war powers, the president of the united states has authority, should continue to have that authority from the war powers resolution of '73, congressional debates

over bill clinton and the balkans. the bush white house, you were in, nicolle after oif, oef. end of the day, the constitution is clear, the president will maintain authority. if bob corker wants to have the debate, fine. does he go to the fitness of this president, donald trump? that is where the anxiety of a lot americans lie and a decision senator cork hear to make before tuesday. sneak in one more break and be right back. what's the secret to turning a no into a yes? do you know how to network like a champ and when is a good time to have fun in the office? i'm j.j. ramberg and i have great answers to these questions which might help you run a better business. check out the "your business" on msnbc to help you work smart, grow fast and go further. >> announcer: sponsored by american express. helping you get business done.

with some friendly advice, a genuine smile and a warm welcome they make your town... well, your town. that's why american express is proud to be the founding partner of small business saturday. a day where you get to return that love, because shopping small makes a big difference. so, on november 25th get up, get out, and shop small. (avo) but you also have a higher risk of heart attack or stroke. non-insulin victoza® lowers a1c, and now reduces cardiovascular risk. victoza® lowers my a1c and blood sugar better than the leading branded pill. (avo) and for people with type 2 diabetes treating cardiovascular disease, victoza® is now approved to lower the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. and while it isn't for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. (avo) victoza® is not for people with type 1 diabetes

or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and get medical help right away if you get symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so, stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. gallbladder problems have happened in some people. tell your doctor right away if you get symptoms. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion, and constipation. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. ask your doctor about victoza®. firstthen you put yourselfareer. through school.

got the degree. you've given it your all, to reach the goals you've set. don't let student debt hold you back. refinancing student loans with sofi can save thousands. so you can get where you've always been headed... sooner. see how much you can save with sofi. the leader in student loan refinancing.

a prediction from a source close to senator corker that the president isn't going to like this hearing. >> of course he's not. not going to like it at all. >> big nuke taken away. >> the first time republicans have really taken a look at this. democrats have been pushing this for months now. now we have republicans -- bob corker and jeff flake are on this committee. i'd be interested to see what other republicans like senator rubio and others have to say about this. >> we're going to stay on it. my thanks to you all. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now. hi, chuck. >> hi, nicolle. never a dull day. >> never, ever. what are you leading with? >> with more trouble. i don't know about you. >> i'll be watching. >> if it's thursday, it is more trouble for the gop. tonight -- charging of inappropriate behavior by alabama republican senate candidate roy moore with