oop. that's me and brian williams. all glued to the year's ten most at 9:00 on msnbc. my thanks to my guests. that does it for our hour. "mtp daily" starts right now. hi, chuck. >> hi, nicolle. thank you. happy weekend. i'll be tuning in. if it's friday, the president campaigns against the -- fbi? good evening. i'm chuck todd here in washington. back in washington, i should say. welcome to "mtp daily." we begin tonight with the escalating campaign to destroy robert mueller's credibility and apparently destroy the fbi's credibility.

today president trump scoff offed the fbi moments before speaking at a graduation ceremony for, you guessed it, the fbi. >> it's a shame what's happened with the fbi, and it is very sad when you look at those documents and how they've done that is really, really disgraceful, and you have a lot of very angry people that are seeing it. it's a very sad thing to watch. everybody -- not me -- everybody. the level of anger at what they've been witnessing with respect to the fbi is certainly very sad. >> the documents he's likely referring to are private text messages wreten by an fbi agent that were given to investigators this summer. strzok was removed after these text messages were discovered. we knew president trump and his allies would look for something to attack mueller's credibility

and now believe they have found it. >> i call on my republican colleagues to join me in calling for the firing of bob mueller. >> this is disgusting, unaccountable bias, and there's no way that could not affect a person's work. >> i think the public trust in this whole thing is gone. >> we are now beginning to better understand the magnitude of this insider bias on mr. mueller's team. >> some want mueller fired, others want a second specialnve special counsel to investigate the second counsel, and investigate hillary clinton's e-mails, bringing us back to the president today. attacked the credibility on that as well. >> when you look at the hillary clinton investigation, it was -- you know, i've been saying it for a long time. that was a rigged system, folks. that was a rigged system. when you look at what they did

with respect to the hillary clinton investigation, it was rigged. and there's never been anything like it in this country that we've ever found before. >> this was today. this wasn't 18 months ago, in case you wondered. it may have sounded like the campaign. the president's view, invest 2k3w5i9ing my political enemy, lock her up. investigating me, let it go. >> there is absolutely no collusion. that has been proven. that was a democrat hoax. it was an excuse for losing the election and it should have never been this way where they spent all of these millions of dollars. there is no collusion. that's it. and we've got to get back to running a country. >> as david ignatius writes in the "washington post," president trump's recent denunciations recall the famous legal advice. if the facts are against you, argue the law. if the law against you, argue the facts. if the law and the facts are against you -- pound the table

and yell like hell. but in this case the president isn't pounding a table. he's arguably pounding american democracy. joined by a former fbi special agent and nbc national security analyst. mr. watts, let me start with this, which is, we clearly have this fight going on about trying to undermine whatever has been found in this investigation, but in all of these, both the hill hearing earlier this week with rod rosenstein having to do with this issue of these fbi agents, and what even the president said today, it's never about -- nobody is questioning any facts uncovered. they seem to question the people in charge of uncovering the facts. >> that's right. in the trump world, no one can follow the letter of the law or justice. it has to be about sides. everyone has to be part of are one side or the other, and i

think that's what's disturbing. it's hard for the president to imagine people can be unbiased, probably because he never is. i know from working in the government, whether the fbi, justice department, intel community or the department of defense, it's mission first and about america first and people very much focus on that principle there. and i never recall one time someone saying what would the democrats do with this? or how would this help the republicans? it's never been a focus until now. and so my biggest concern is, he's degrading a u.s. institution. he went to the fbi academy today to push for basically a criminal justice package yet what he did was degrade the ability of the fbi to do that by lowering confidence in the institution. if you're an fbi agent going into trump country trying to work a story, get a lead or cooperation, those people now think that the fbi is biased or can't be trusted. that's really dangerous for our country. >> let me ask you this. when -- has anybody ever asked

you while doing an investigation about your political leanings? >> no. never once. >> should they have? >> and when i was -- >> should they have? let me ask you that. >> no. >> why not? >> what i find curious -- what i find curious is that there's no belief when they ask you that question that you could do the job to the letter of the law. one thing about the justice department is the rule book is really strict and never is it just one person's agenda that gets advanced. there are checks and balances all along the way, whether a subpoena or fisea application, it goes through a rigorous process and multiple agencies. asking you what your, you know, leanings are politically or wanting to know who you voted for, i've seen it come up before and i know this for sure, that director mueller when the fbi director would not take kindly to that and say this is my person to do the job. we don't pick teams in these fights. >> what is your view as somebody

who's been at the -- fbi, of how these text messages mr. strzok released? >> it has to have been somebody who got them or saw them. i'm assuming a doj, i don't actually know and deliberately released them. a pretty consistent pattern. remember going back many months, the trip to the white house to look at questions about unmasking. that was the scandal they were trying to promote six, seven months ago. now we have these text messages leaked out, and the fact of the matter is, if you actually go through the text messages, it's also not flattering for i believe eric holder, bernie sanders and even hillary clinton in places. so it looks like the banter that went back and forth between two fbi employees and they shouldn't have had that banter, particularly in these roles they were in. >> do you believe the justice department selectively released these texts? >> i don't know. i wonder if there was somebody in the justice department that

had an ax to grind or an angle to take and was more political, and i also wonder what the relationship is between certain members of congress and how they're interacting with the justice department. the whole reason we had a special counsel appointed was to take bias out of this. that's exactly what director mueller did. he got even a whiff of it, he removed it from the situation. that's why this happened in july. worried we have elements in the justice department against selectively leaking things at times for political advantage for one party or the other. bad either way, democrat or republicans. >> and many people believed the fbi was selectively leaking information for rudy giuliani throughout the last six weeks of the campaign, out of the new york fbi office, at least. i'd ask you this. the toothpaste seems out of the tube. chunks of americans left and right who actually agree with the president.

that there's something wrong inside the fbi. how do you fix this perception? >> i think in terms of perception fixing it will come from the top. maybe that is about moving these investigations forward a little more quickly now. they'll have to, to show the actual facts of the case and the investigation. we've seen two indictments and that sort of showed return on what this investigation is all about, but i'm thinking will actually put more pressure on the mueller team, even the senate committees to advance the ball in these investigations. the other thing is, there should be some sort of disclosure or process, and this is something the fbi could do, say, hey, this was detected by the special counsel's office, brought to the attention of the fbi. that investigator was immediate he removed from the case to show them how the actual process works. if you believe the narrative out in the media now, it's that one fbi agent can solely and alone move an entire case or investigation in one way or the other. that's just not the situation here. >> just going to say. anybody that spent ten minutes

covering the fbi realizes how absurd that is. thank you. appreciate it. bring in tonight's panel. a bloomberg view columnist, and clinton campaign and obama white house and white house reporter for the associated press and msnbc contributor. welcome all. i want to play something jeff sessions, attorney general today, and the guy in charge of the fbi actually tried to patch things up a little bit today between what the president said. take a listen. >> would you consider a pardon for michael flynn? >> i don't want to talk about pardons on michael flynn yet. we'll see what happens. let's see. i can say this -- when you look at what's gone on with the fbi and with the justice department, people are very, very angry. >> women, apparently we don't have that sound. i have it right here. sessions wa asked about president trump's comments about the fbi being in tatters.

jeff secessiay sessions said i e the view the fbi functioning is not functioning at a high level all over country. a giant political fight. how damaging is this? >> depends on to whom you're talking about the damage accruing. i think that this is part of a process of delegitimatization of the mueller investigation that the president and his along lies have been engaged in for some time. i think that some of those texts and particularly the text where the agent dismissed talks about needing an insurance policy and the case trump was elected made it easier for that campaign to proceed. i don't know if it's necessarily going to lead to mueller being fired, but they definitely want to encourage republican partisans not to take this investigation seriously. >> well, i think they've succeeded right now. it's been a rough couple of weeks for mueller and they have

enough cover that -- i don't think you'd have the house republicans even think about impeachment if he fired mueller. >> i think you're right and i didn't think that by the middle of december i would feel that way. i thought maybe something that might happen in the spring. they're trying to delegitimate ice mueller but i think that there is an enormous impact, even more broadly, on standards of democracy and we're going to be in a big rule of law fight. i mean, this is -- the fbi's credibility really has been hurt and that's not going to go away whenever whatever happens with mueller and trump -- >> look, i brought up -- wasn't that long ago many of your partisans, jennifer, argued the fbi was somehow selectively -- >> i believe that jim comey was acting that way in order to protect jim comey's reputation. i never thought it was partisan. >> that does, then -- >> contributes to this idea the fbi's reputation. >> what we're certainly

seeing -- >> -- a mess. >> -- evolution from the fringes of the right, right wing media in particular becoming a much more mainstream-held idea in the republican party. one thing for someone from judicial watch to say the fbi is the kgb. another thing to say it while given a slot on fox news. say it, suddenly talking points parroted by some members of the house republicans who now you're having, this president, a president who has questioned the institutions of federal law enforcement and intelligence like none of his president sirs now handed something he can hold on to and say, look, i told you the system was rigged. i told you this was against me. this whole thing is a witch-hunt. >> i want to play something from 1998. paul begala on "meet the press." appears to be a familiar strategy, jennifer, take a look. >> ken starr merricks over $1 million from tobacco money, some of the most bitter opponents the president has had. at least four witnesses came forward to say that starr in his

office tried to intimidate them into changing their testimony and testifying falsely. a lot of questions about this investigation that sound lawyers laid down the law for the president, said you cannot in this atmosphere with this kind of a partisan investigation with the power unchecked that this prosecutor has subject yourself to this. >> i could change paul begala to jay sekulow, jennifer and change the words starr to mueller and picture jay sekulow making the same argument? >> both things can be true. ken starr could have been out of control, partisan motivations and robert mueller, and ken starr was investigating a, you know, it was investigating something not quite -- put the country in the stakes as russia trying to influence our elections, but i think, you know, mueller has done a good job in going above and beyond what is necessary to be credible, and ken starr was not. >> the other way to look at

this, despite the attempts to attack ken starr, by the clinton white house, he wasn't fired. he sent over -- sent over -- bill clinton was impeached. it didn't impede the investigation, therefore doesn't impede mueller? >> sure, he was impeached but the "ststarr report was receives a purely partisan document. everyone inner buy in to the case against clinton from elected democrats and he ultimately survived the scandal. that's essentially the game played here by republicanses. look, the mueller investigation could, left on its own, conclude with a report to the house that could recommend impeachment or at least be the basis for impeachment and one of the things the administration wants to do, poison the well with republicans so it doesn't get that far. >> and a sharp break of what trump allies inside and outside the white house are saying. his counsel is suggesting to him, this is going to be okay. we should let the process run its course. you're going to be exonerated.

this will wrap up seener than later. they said thanksgiving. that's come and gone but still believe there are a lot of people, outside advisors people he talks to in the residence of the white house saying a very different thing. sir, your presidency is in danger. you freed to take a more aggressive tone. you need to act, perhaps even triggering that sequence of events leading to bob mueller's dismissal. >> jennifer, i think his outside advisers are right. i think ty cobb misled the president. >> a huge '18 issue, because it's congress' job to be a check on the president, and that's job of the democrats and republicans in congress. democrats i think will have to be more aggressive in '18. that means mixing, makes everybody uncomfortable, but that -- people really care about this in america, and it's their job. >> this feels like a sliply slope. where does it end? does it mean fbi agents are not

allowed to have any political opinion? >> you're asking. question of -- they're allowed to have views. >> right. >> it's worked prior to this. >> they've done it to our industry, in certain levels, a campaign tactic. now doing it to fbi investigators. >> making your opposition or even in this case the observers, the press, part of the story. >> just like the fbi. the investigators. they're not picking a side. >> but the trump world, and particularly -- both sides have done this, particularly the right and trump world have soared of made the fbi or the press a story and used it to attack them and undermine credibility. >> i draw the line between most texts, which aren't that important, because opinions in general, the insurance policy text i think raises the question. what did he mean by that? >> does it help your comfort level that mueller fired him before found out? became public? to me that's a big distinction. >> but can't sundayly they, no big deal and it was ride ght to

take him out of the text. >> i bet there were anti-anti-clinton texts too. and batman versus superman. alien versus predator. joe versus the volcano and now bannon versus the gop. grab your popcorn. why in the wake of alabama, this political battle to are one for the ages.

welcome back. republicans say they have the votes for a massive tax plan. in a few moments we'll see the bill itself. any minute, due to get the final, final, final version of the tax plan signed off by the conference committee, chairman of the house and ways side expected to speak. text not yet out. a few details firmed up. top individual tax rate will be 37%. a dip below. corporate tax rate 21%. remember, it was going to be 20%. raised it a little in order to get rid of other things.

the standard deduction, double for individuals and families and obamacare individual mandate is eliminated. the odds of passing this bill are looking good now after late movement on the senate side this afternoon. marco rubio a yes after the conferees expanded the refundable amount with a child tax limit. and senator bob corker, lone republican, no, on the original vote announced he will be a yes vote on the final bill. said earlier reservations the bill would add at least one penny to the deficit and told me he wouldn't vote for anything that added one penny to the deficit and now says the country will be better off with it as law. the current plan is for the house to take up the bill first likely on tuesday, the easier of the two hurdles to clear. two senators, arizona's john mccain and mississippi's thad cochran missed this week for health reasons and republicans may need every one of their votes, at least one of those two, plus vice president mike

pence to seal the deal. more "mtp daily" right after this. i am totally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424. it's what's inside isthe person who opens it.x. give ancestrydna, the only dna test that can trace your origins to over 150 ethnic regions. save 20% for the holidays at ancestrydna.com.

welcome back. the latest block buster in a saga stretching back multiple episodes coming soon to a political theater near you. another edition of steve bannon versus the republican party establishment. amp roy moore lost this week in alabama the empower, or establishment, is striking back, plaming bannon who backed moore for the loss. >> this isn't a rebuke of conservative values or agenda. it's rebuke of a candidate. i think -- >> steve bannon -- >> i think president trump had it right. steve bannon did not have it right. >> i don't think it was helpful for that, you know, the ethno-national protective agenda. yeah, certainly. >> i don't think steve bannon adds anything positive at all to the dialogue in the country. >> bannon's top adversary mcconnell taking aim.

superpac sent out this tweet yesterday placing the alabama defeatly on bannon's shoulders. clearly a message more to donors. this is your state. you see all the red. this is your state on bannon, you see the blue. for bannon's part, rebellions are built on hope. bannon is planning on mcconnell "own" newly elected senator doug jones and his war against the establishment is only getting warmed up. so where does this galactic civil war go next? joining me, a man who dealt with these wars in the past. corporaler republican tom davis, and mr. davis, hello. >> chuck, good to be here. >> so it's interesting to see mitch mcconnell take direct aim on bannon. it's weird when it's a strategist versus strategist fight and no voter gives a darn about who the strategist is. the real aim seems to be essentially bankrupt the donors that might bank roll bannon.

effective? >> could be. i think without money these candidates would go nowhere. it's been the super pac money that propelled them in states like delaware, colorado, nevada. selecting candidates that are non-elctable in general elections, which costs republicans the senate in 2014. so it could work, but you've got to understand, even when republicans are united right no in this atmosphere it's a tough atmosphere. spending time going after each other it makes uphill tougher. >> i was going to say. i remember in 2010 where the left was furious with blanche lincoln in arkansas. threw energy behind a lieutenant governor ended up in a runoff. you're going what are you fighting for? about to get drownsed in the general. sure enough, lost by some 25 points. you are talking about missing the forest through the trees. is that what's happening here, feels like, with bannon and mcconnell. >> look what's happened in these special elections, virginia elections, look at the polling

at this point. generic polling. republicans need to get together. the more they're divided it makes it an uphill climb, even harder. >> you tell me. one of these cases, if the election were today, a wave billing. it would be a wave already. the demming challenge right now is somehow sustaining this momentum. they're there. the question is, can they be there in 11 months? ask you this. haley barbour, bad gets worse and -- how do they stop the bleeding? republicans? the president's job rating feels like the real handle here. >> it is. good news for republicans unlike 2006, 2010, 2014 is they see it coming early. these other waves developed kind of late. people didn't see it. members running, losing with a half million dollars in their accounts. they see this coming and control the agenda, the presidency, the house and at least preside over

the senate and can set the agenda and change this trajectory. this in-fighting makes it very, very difficult. >> you're a man of the suburbs. >> right. >> you, one could argue you sort of, were part of the last generation of republicans when the suburbs were still republican, or at least lean republican? what would you be telling paul ryan and mitch mcconnell and donald trump to be doing right now to win back these suburban vote voters? seems potentially generationally changes if they're not careful? >> these are highly educated people. educated areas turning against the republican party and the rhetoric is a good part of this thing. look at tax bill. had to tweak that a little. the s.a.l.t. hits higher income suburbs. >> backed in, looks like a version, pick or choose. write out your local or your property tax. agree. mitigated that. >> and these people are not democrats but voting democrat, voting against the republicans.

still gettable. i don't think the mold is hardened on this yet. >> right. >> they're slowly losing it and you can see the blue streak in the cities moving out into the suburb areas's in virginia, they took everything. >> when you look at alabama, do you say, black swan or, ooh. 48% donald trump approval rating. can't blame that on roy moore? >> women, true, but you've got to look at the turnout skewed, really, trump's favorable/unfavorable. difficulty with midterm elections upparty is more juiced. more enthusiastic. secondly, swing voters want to basically put a check on the president, giving the president a blank check. that's the problem for republicans in this midterm. >> a couple cultural things on capitol hill. my colleague kasie hunt asked paul ryan and interesting question about members using their offices as also their second homes. and that it is actually created an odd atmosphere for member of congress' office is also their bedroom.

it can make may maybe that makes staffers -- is that a practice, seemed frugal and harmless suddenly looks not so good in the light of this day we're living in? >> some of that. members do this for a couple reasons. some financial. these guys, nobody's feeling sorry for them. haven't had a raise in nine years. got two houses. >> i tell people, look, they make a lot of money, try to have two homes than salary. >> washington's high rent. it is a high rent district and allows them to say i'm not part of washington. here temporarily. but in this atmosphere right now, we don't know where these scandals are going to go but i suspect we've just seen the tip of the iceberg on this. >> feels lying, most won't know what i'm referring to. see a house cleaning a la house bank scandal, in '92 cleared the brush. 100 members, half and half each side may be what we're seeing. >> the bank scandal lit both sides and with the republicans, they need to make sure it hits

both sides. look at the way the democrats are positioning themselves. >> looks more -- >> they're try fog blame it on republicans. see if they can sustain that. >> tom davis, always a pleasure. coming up, is the state department actually bracing for a an exit. butting helds over north korea.

at planters we know how to throw a remarkable holiday party. just serve classy snacks and be a gracious host, no matter who shows up.

do you like nuts?

there's a lot more "mtp daily" ahead, but as you know,

when it's sunday -- it's "meet the press." this week, all about the political earthquake in alabama and beyond. this weekend on "meet the press," my guests west virginia senator joe manchin, ohio governor john kasich. what's next for the republican agenda now that another democrat is elected to the senate? also get the president's chief congress many liaison here as well. all sunday on a packed "meet the press." right back, though, with more "mtp daily." she's nationally recognized for her compassion and care. he spent decades fighting to give families a second chance.

but to help others, they first had to protect themselves. i have afib. even for a nurse, it's complicated... and it puts me at higher risk of stroke. that would be devastating. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. once i got the facts, my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®... to help keep me protected. once-daily xarelto®, a latest-generation blood thinner... ...significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. it has similar effectiveness to warfarin. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor interacting with less of your body's natural blood-clotting function. for afib patients well-managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® compares in reducing the risk of stroke. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding,

unusual bruising, or tingling. if you've had spinal anesthesia, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures... ...and before starting xarelto®-about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. it's important to learn all you can... ...to help protect yourself from a stroke. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. there's more to know™. we need to be ready for my name's scott strenfel and r i'm a meteorologist at pg&e. we make sure that our crews as well as our customers are prepared to how weather may impact their energy. so every single day we're monitoring the weather, and when storm events arise our forecast get crews out ahead of the storm to minimize any outages. during storm season we want our customers to be ready and stay safe. learn how you can be prepared at pge.com/beprepared. together, we're building a better california. when trying to save for the big things in life... we tend to start small.

less of this. cut back on that. but if it feels like a lot of effort for a little gain... change that. start with something that makes a big difference... your student loans. refinancing with sofi saves over $22,000 on average. it's an easier way to reach your life goals sooner. we've helped over 195,000 people. we want to help you too. find out how much you can save in just two minutes at sofi.com/save >> [ inaudible ]. >> well, we're going to see what happens with north korea. we have a lot of support. there are a lot of nations that agree with us. almost everybody. we can't let that happen, and we're going it see what happens with north korea. we hope it works out. >> welcome back nap was president trump this morning saying wait and see. that's not the only cliffhanger when it comes to u.s. diplomacy.

also tillerson's future. seems to have made a tenuous and fraught relationship with the white house worse. earlier said the u.s. was willing to talk to north korea anytime without preconditions. that contradicted the harder line the white house pushed and today at the u.n. tillerson walked back that statement. >> the president's policy on north korea is quite clear, and there's no daylight at all between the president's policy and the pursuit of that policy. so we are not going to accept preconditions for these talks, but as i indicated in my remarks, our communication channels remain open. north korea knows they're open. they know where the door is. they know where to walk through that door when they want to talk. >> well, joining me now, chris hill. familiar face to viewers of this show and former u.s. ambassador to south korea and an nbc news diplomacy expert. ambassador hill, welcome back, sir. >> thank very much. >> so let me start with this,

the door, and whether the north koreans know it's open and whether they will want to walk through it. what is their condition for walking through that door in your estimation? >> well, i this north koreans have long since given up the idea they will join in talks aimed at denuclearization. that was the concept of the six-party talks. anyone who took part in those talks believed in a denuclearized peninsula. north korea in 2009 said they're not going anymore and prepared to enter into talks to discuss their nuclear program as one nuclear state to another, and perhaps have some kind of arms limitation talks along the lines of the u.s. soviet union in the 1970s. clearly, this is not going to work but frankly i think our secretary of state needs to be careful to differentiate a so-called preaddition to having a purpose to the talks, and in saying we don't want

preconditions, he then suggested we'd have no purpose to the talks even mentioned we'll talk about the weather, and i think that's serncertainly got the wh house's attention and a little concerning because they'd seen this problem several weeks ago. we have a secretary of state still very much on a learning curve. >> seems to me, though, and i feel you've alluded this to me a few times. look, the north koreans will come to the able after they are able to miniaturize a ballistic nasal can make to washington. and when in dough that, let's talk. before that, they're not going to talk. is that still your assessment? >> i think that's right. they're claiming they already have a deliverable nuclear weapon but there's no proof of that obviously. they will probably wait until they actually have it and by the way it is definitely coming and why there's a sense of urgency on the u.s. side to try to get going on this. frankly, this discussion about whether we're going to talk with

conditions, pre-conditions, without preconditions. the secretary talking about the idea they need to earn their place at the table, whatever that means. so we seem to be wrapped around on this and we're losing track of the real game, which is, russia -- russia, other countries, need to kind of work with us to make sure north korea understands we can't allow this. >> here's what i -- i'm starting to come to the conclusion we're the only country that seems to care if north korea gets a nuclear weapon? >> there's definitely an element of that. throughout my talks back dur, t during the bush administration, we care, south koreans cared maybe japan. certainly china seemed to be sort of split on the issue with many chinese thinking they'd rather have north korea nukes than u.s. troops. so i think we need to have a better understanding of what the game is, what we're trying to get accomplished, and bring people together, and that's where the diplomacy ought to be

and i think this issue whether we ought to sit down, talk to the north koreans about nuclear weapons or the weather is not today's issue right now. >> so before this tillerson popping up his head about talks, no preconditions and then, of course, the sort of the mini walk-back today, we were sitting on this odd comment from lindsey graham, perhaps, a future replacement to tillerson at the state department, might be a 70% chance of some sort of military action against north korea the next time they test something. do you get the sense if the north koreans test another nuclear weapon our response is not going to be diplomatic? >> i do not get that sense, because the military response and an overt response of that kind, say a bombing strike of some kind, we would have to be informs the south koreans ahead of time, they'd need to protect 20,000 south koreans.

i'm not sure they'd want to go that route and if we didn't tell them, the situation worse. i'm not sure where lindsey graham is getting his information and frankly getting the odds. the real problem is a couple of things. one, there is a potential for miscalculation. i mean if we have these bombers flying so close to the north korean coastline, what if someone take as pots shot at one of those? so there's this kind of crisis issue we need to deal with, and i thought secretary tillerson was trying to allude to that, some kind of communication challenge, but instead seemed to go back into the issue of communicating for the purpose of having talks with a apparently no purpose to the talks. >> seems as if we are totally stuck. that there is no way to change this calculus right now? >> it's not looking good right now, but certainly we have a chinese president, fresh out of a party congress looking as strong as ever inviting the

south korean president to china. china looks like they'd like to deal with this and i wonder, where's our diplomacy? the answer, no diplomacy unless you have diplomats and mr. tillerson anies this is a one-man operation. it's not. he needs teams of people out there in all kinds of different places. >> well, i don't know if those teams will ever get appointed in the tillerson era as fast as it appears to be coming to an end. ambassador chris hill, as always out of denver, colorado tonight, thank you. up next, is one of the president trump's judicial nominees ready for a lifetime appointment to the bench? you be the judge. >> have you ever tried a jury trial? >> i have not. >> civil? >> no. >> criminal? >> no. >> bench? >> no. >> state or federal court? >> i have not. ( ♪ ) more people shop online for the holidays than ever before.

(clapping) and the united states postal service delivers more of those purchases to homes than anyone else in the country. ( ♪ ) because we know, even the smallest things are sometimes the biggest. even the smallest things i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.

when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night, so he got home safe. yeah, my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. what?! you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. welcome back. tonight i'm obsessed with president trump's packing of the federal courts with conservatives and how things can go sideways when you try to do it too quickly. the president likes to brag he's nominated a lot of judges and he has. 40 for appellate courts. 16 districts courts and argue, and i will, this is mitch mcconnell's victory not this president's. he's the one that held up president obama's appointments in the last year and a half and handed president trump more than 100 vacancies. the mcconnell courts if you call them that, and i will.

yesterday we found out what happens when the guy you pick isn't ready for the job interview who is vetting these people? here's federal election member matthew petersen, named to the u.s. district court, district of columbia grilled by senator john kennedy of louisiana who happens to be a republican. >> has any of you not tried a case to verdict? in a courtroom? mr. petersen. you have ever tried a jury trial? >> i have not. >> civil? >> no. >> criminal? >> no. >> bench? >> no. >> state or federal court? >> i have not. >> have you ever argued a motion in state court? >> i have not. >> have you ever argued a motion in federal court? >> no. >> just for the record, do you know what a motion in limine is. >> i would probably not be able to give awe good definition right here at the table. >> do you know what the younger

abstention doctrine is? i am -- heard of it, but again -- >> how about the pullman abstention? >> i heard -- >> you'll see that a lot in federal court. >> perhaps don mcgahn at the white house ought to have hired john kennedy to vet these candidates. news flash, petersen's nomination withdrawn. we'll be right back. it's red lobster's

new ultimate surf & turf event. and that means five mouthwatering pairings to choose from. like our new feast with lobster-wrapped scallops and a juicy steak. or a new lobster and seafood-topped filet. tempted? better hurry in, it ends soon. we are back. we have just learned speaker paul ryan told the house minutes ago that they will vote for the tax bill on tuesday. we know the senate will go after that. jonathan, we're learning about this tax plan as it comes out. so take it away. and republicans basically heard all the criticism of the

deduction that's people love that were going away. on health, emergency health issues that you might have, on education, college education deductions that look like they were going away. even the state and local taxes. they are now giving you an option. to use your property or this stuff. what i can't figure out, they've dropped top rate. i can't figure out how they're staying within the 1.5 trillion window. >> we'll see in accounting. that will be revealed, whether this will happen or not. i think you've said, you're right. they were responsive to some voices within the party. >> that was where i was going. the loud voice of the oval office. he is so desperate. the white house is so desperate for a win. >> this is not a tax reform

bill. you can't even remotely call it tax reform. they realized the things they wanted to clean up in the code, it is too politically tough so they put it all back in. >> in the past we've had bipartisan tax reform. >> bipartisanship. what is that? >> i know. it was before some of our viewers' time. and partisan tax cuts. this is a little bit of a blend of both in that it is a partisan vehicle but they've tried to stuff about $6 trillion worth of are are tax cuts. they are paring back the state and local tax deduction. they are pairing sbhak other deductions. they're getting rid of the personal and independent deductions. there are those that pose political problems for the deductions and that is what has been different. 2001, 2003, republican tax cuts, not a political problem. >> you still think it is.

>> potentially. >> don't you think potentially if people see more money in their paycheck. >> they're never going to -- my experience having been on the other side of this, when you're trying to convince people. pay roll tax cut. more money in your pocket. >> people don't feel it that way. the initial reaction about this bill is very negative. and i think that the republicans are probably doing two things. they have their rich friends in, no that they're trying to make happy and then they feel this pressure to have a win but i feel like it will feel like a win in november of 18. >> bob corker told me. he said, if we're adding one penny to the deficit, i won't be for it. i'm sorry. the greatest threat to our nation. in the end, he was not, in the end he decided to be for it. i get the sense he is exhausted. are they exhausted from fighting for it anymore? giving up?

it almost feels like he's surrendered. 2017 has worn down a lot of us. it doesn't look like he's happy about it. >> he didn't want to be the lone voice of opposition. you're right. there are other issues that he is digging in on and fighting on. we know he's been one of the president's most outspoken critics including questioning whether he was fit to serve in that office. on this one, he seems to be throwing up his hands. >> i don't think you can say, not a dime added to the deficit. everybody disagrees on the scoring but even the most favorable thing. >> there is no credible estimate other than revenues go down. >> if this works out, they have to spend the rest of their time using it. taking credit for the economy. taking krcredit for tax cuts. people won't notice it on their own because a lot of it is pretty modest.

>> we have he too good of an in case you missed to it bleed he into that. up next, an internet relic is logging off for good.

(hard exhalation) honey? can we do this tomorrow? (grunts of effort) can we do this tomorrow? if you have heart failure symptoms, your risk of hospitalization could increase, making tomorrow uncertain. but entresto is a medicine that was proven, in the largest heart failure study ever, to help more people stay alive and out of the hospital

than a leading heart failure medicine. women who are pregnant must not take entresto. it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren. if you've had angioedema while taking an ace or arb medicine, don't take entresto. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high potassium in your blood. ♪ tomorrow, tomorrow... ♪ when can we do this again, grandpa? well, how about tomorrow? ask your doctor about entresto and help make tomorrow possible.

in case you missed it, a classic part of the internet died today. after 20 years, aol instant messenger shut down. for you young folks out there, let me explain. before people texted, they i.m.'d. before twitter followers, they

had i.m. buddy lists. before facebook status existed, there were i'm away messages. in the late 1990s and early 2000's, i m. was the way to chat with your friends. it wasn't weird that you had to be at your computer to i.m. yes. it is a verb, too. you had to be at your computer to do anything on the internet. and while you sat at your computer, you waited with this noise. and then you waited more for this one. and then you and all your buddies with embarrassing screen names could while away the hours. so even though, i'll admit, i had no idea i. mshs was still a thing. i thought hit died a long time ago. i can't imagine who might be use go it, ben smith, i guess the only thing to say is -- goodbye. that's all for tonight. i have to go see if i've got

mail. we'll be back monday with more "mtp daily." if it's sunday, it's "meet the press" on nbc. "the beat" starts right now. every once in a while, i should give you a couple seconds back. >> is there a good i.m. screen name for "meet the press"? >> m.t.p., baby. >> thank you for the memories. have a good weekend. we begin with breaking news. publics say their tax bill is ready to go. paul ryan says the house will vote tuesday. we'll get tom. i have a ceo saying there's still time to stop this bill. that comes as the top democrat on the house warns, republicans may try shut down that panel's bipartisan russia probe. he says within days. house republicans also calling on the party to unify around, trying to get bob mueller fired. which comes as we are learning of new reports a