cause of this tragic accident, and it could have been much worse, sounds like from our bridges to roads, to airports to train tracks to our ports, it is a security issue. it is a healthiness issue, dilapidated, dangerous and this is where we need investment. one thing the people want the president to put forward, he consistently failed to do it, bipartisan support. should be done. >> that does it for "deadline." i'm nicolle wallace, my friend katy tur in the for chuck on "mtp daily." it is a monday. good evening. i'm katy tur in new york in for chuck todd. welcome to "mtp daily." the president says he's going to get tough with russia. but is anyone taking him seriously? mr. trump today delivered a major national security address in washington laying out a

wide-ranging strategy to protect the country. one of the pillars of that strategy, per the white house, is counter-to china and russia's use of technology and propaga a propaganda. here's what president trump said. >> we face rival powers, russia and china, that seek to challenge american influence, values and wealth. we will develop new ways to counter those who use new domains, such as cyber and social media, to attack our nation or threaten our society. we will stand up for ourselves and we will stand up for our country like we have never stood up before. >> like i said, is anyone taking this seriously, specifically when it comes to russia as the white house warns against russian propaganda, there is an active investigation into whether or not trump's campaign colluded with russia's efforts to spread it.

the president has called russian interference a hoax, despite all the evidence indicating a very real threat. in fact, this argument was recently declared the "lie of the year" by politifact. >> this russia thing with trump and russia is a made up story, an excuse by the democrats for having lost an election that they should have won. >> nbc news has learned that senior fbi officials warned trump last year that russia would try to infiltrate his campaign. that's according to multiple government officials familiar with the matter. but based on his son's communications with wikileaks and jeff session's meeting with the russian ambassador, it's unclear how seriously he may have taken those warnings, and remember, a probe into whether or not mr. trump as president personally tried to obstruct or impede part of the fbi's investigation into his former national security adviser michael flynn, who later pleaded guilty to lying to the fbi about

his contact with russia. mr. trump has resisted sanctioning putin's russia, despite overwhelming pressure from congress. and the president and his allies have attacked the credibility of bob mueller's investigation into what actually happened with russia during the election. the president and his legal team want to close that investigation, and in its place, open a new probe into fbi corruption. all of the attacks on mueller have raised alarms that the president may try to fire him, which the white house repeatedly denied this weekend. >> are you going to -- >> no, i'm not. >> no or is he -- is he setting the stage for firing -- >> no. there's no -- there's no conversation. >> there's no way he's going to fire him? >> there's no conversation about it whatsoever in the white house, chuck. >> none what so ever? >> you keep bringing it up. we've continued to cooperate in every single way in that investigation. >> would it alarm you if

president trump fired mr. mueller? >> i was at dinner with the president last night and vice president, i haven't heard anything about this. any firing. >> but, folks, if we can't take the president seriously when he promises to do something like get tough with putin, can we also take him seriously when he promises not to do something? like fire bob mueller? joined by democratic senator ben cardin of maryland, the ranking member on the senate foreign relations committee. senator, thank you for joining us. >> good to be with you, thanks. >> last month you said that russia's election meddling was an act of war. when you heard about the president's speech today, were you hoping he would -- he would declare war on russia? >> well, what russia did to the united states cannot go unchallenged. it's not just the u.s. with the attempt to do in our election, they also did it in western europe and we have to speak with a strong voice we will not tolerate that type of behavior. we can't cozy up to mr. putin

and give him compliments when he is attacking our country. we need to impose a mandatory sanctions that congress authorized earlier this year. the president needs to be in the forefront of working with our european allies to strengthening our sanctions against russia. that's what i want to hear from the president. he takes this seriously, taking action against russia, needs to be measured. but it needs to be responsive to what they've done against us. >> you say needs to be measured but use specific language. you called it an act of war. if you think it is an act of war, don't you think that the president needs to be stronger in his rhetoric? i mean, it feels like you're advocating for him to do something more than just sanctions? >> well, i want him to be stronger with his language, absolutely certain. when you attack our free, democratic election systems, that's a hostile act against the united states. so i want to hear the president first condemn russia. he still is challenges whether it happened or not. still raising questions as to

whether russia did anything in this country. he's still giving mr. putin credibility. i want to hear from our president that that conduct is unacceptable, that we're working with our european allies to make it clear to russia they need to stop that activity, we're going to impose sanctions against russia, which will affect their economy, and unless they change their behavior. we can monitor their behavior and make sure they're no longer interfering with our election system. >> given the interference, do you think that we are at war with russia right now? >> i think we have interests that are different than russia. i think russia is trying to affect our way of governance. i think they are trying to spread their influence in europe. they are looking for vulnerable countries. we see what they've done in ukraine in trying to destabilize that country. we know there's russian troops presence in moldova, in georgia. i think russia has designs for a greater russia, and they are

trying to have their way of governance prevail over ours. >> your general reaction to the speech, though. there must have been stuff in it that you actually like. the decertifying of the iran deal. getting tough, talking tough, at least, on isis. talking about a booming stock market, low unemployment? >> i must tell you, some of the statements issued as part of his national security strategy where he does talk about russia's behavior, at least the strategy talks that way, but quite frankly when a president talks about america first and talks about us leading but not working with the rest of the international community when we pull out of the paris climate talks when we act unilaterally on the decertification on iran, that's not what a leader does. that's not what the united states should be doing. >> turning now to the mueller probe. are you worried about the integrity of that investigation? >> quite frankly, i think

everyone should be worried and making sure mr. mueller has all the authority and all of the resources he needs to bring this investigation to its conclusion. we certainly do not want to see the president interfere in any way with independence of that investigation, and it's not helpful when we hear language like he may fire mr. mueller. that type of language should not be used by the president. >> is it helpful to have agents on that investigation like peter strzok. he was fired. have you concerned he compromised integrity and given an open to people who don't want this investigation to continue? >> i think it's clear mr. mueller has the confidence and respect of those in the field. no one accused him of being a partisan. he's not a partisan, he's trying to get this investigation done in an professional matter and that's what we want to support. >> if you learned last year

there were fbi agents working on the clinton e-mail investigation, who were exchanging text messages, calling clinton names like an idiot or saying f clinton, would you be concerned then? >> i'll be concerned about anyone in an investigation that doesn't act professionally. we have seen certain actors involved and disciplinary actions taken. as far at investigation of the mueller investigation, i have total confidence in mr. mueller, his reputation, record of professionalism, is certainly, i think, beyond reproach. >> you have to concede it's given an opening to the president's supporters to say this is not a fair and impartial investigation? >> i must tell you, i've never seen anything like this before. where you have a person of mr. mueller's reputation being challenged as far as his independence is concerned. to me that is trying to discredit his recommendations before they're made. trying to undermine the

investigation. that i would hope would have no place in american juice pruderi. >> and some think senator franken should reconsider resigning. take a listen. >> what they did to al was aproemp atroec atrocious, watch him give a speech and hug him? the highest level of hypocrisy i've seen in my life. it made me sick. >> he hasn't resigned yet. >> i hope he doesn't. >> what's your reaction to senator manchin? >> my react to senator franken, he made a decision he thought was best for constituents and himself. he recognized his behavior was wrong. took full responsibility for it. he believed that a long ethics investigation would compromise his ability to represent his constituents and made that judgment. i respect the judgment. >> letson honest, under intense

pressure from a number of democrats. a number of democrats like gillibrand came out and the others who said he should step aside. that's when franken decided to step aside. manchin says it was foolish for the democratic party to pressure him that way. do you think it was foolish? >> i think senator franken made the judgment he thought was right. each individual senator takes responsibility -- >> i'm not asking. foolish of democrats to pressure him into resigning? >> you have to ask each member who made statements on their own behalf on mr. franken, senator franken. they have to take responsibility for their actions. senator franken took responsibilities for his actions. >> senator cardin, thanks for joining us. appreciate your time, sir. >> thank you. let me bring in ann milgram, former federal prosecutors also the attorney general for the state of new jersey. so good to see you. nbc has exclusive reporting today that the fbi warned the president right after he became the nominee in 2016 that russia

might try to infiltrate his campaign. >> yes. >> is that a piece of evidence for bob mueller? >> yes. i think so. it's normal. i think that is something that would happen in the ordinary course. when i was attorney general -- >> given the same briefing. >> exactly. the kind of information that potential -- two candidates who could be president of the united states they would want to know that it's possible a foreign government is trying to ill fill trait they're campaigns. mueller will be interested in knowing after that, who in the campaign was also given that warning? who were in the room, was in the room at the time it happened? who was told taabout it, and wh, if anything did they do? a series of contacts with the russian government happened after that. >> is it what the president may have done with that information or may have not done with that information? >> more the latter. you expect, a prosecutor, always asking what's there that shouldn't and what's missing? this the situation you and i would expect that you're given a warning that the russian government is trying to

infiltrate your campaign. so you would talk to all of the members of your campaign. say any contacts, please let us know, and the question is, i think, was the fbi ever told about any of those contacts? if not, why not? >> is it a bigger issue foz her to who may have had contact with russia before this meeting or those who may have continued to have contact after this meeting? seven campaign associates were in contact with russian figures and figures in connection with russia at the time of this fbi warning. and then some continued on afterwards. trump junior, for instance, communicated with wikileaks and jeff sepgss met with ambassador kislyak after that warning. >> right. so before the warning, there may be contacts that mueller's focused on for other reason, but i think after that warning, you would expect behavior to change. expect the campaign would be very much on guard if the russians came to them or tried to build relationships with anyone. >> and not respond top wikileaks?

passing it on to the fbi? >> correct. that contact the fbi if any particularly interfered with the u.s. election. >> communicating with an ambassador, though works that raise that sort of red flag? >> depends on what the fbi asked, and in the context of that meeting, the fbi probably said, look, we have reason to believe that the russian government is trying to infiltrate your campaign and trying to basically insert people into it or get information from you, and so we want you to be careful. then probably they would have said, please call us if x, y or z happens, and so we could speculate on that. you would think high-level contacts with the russian government would constitute something the fbi would want to know. again a lot depends on what was said in that briefing room. >> and who got that information after donald trump did, and whether or not -- i mean, the june 9th meeting, i'm reminded of that meeting. the one with don junior and paul manafort, with the woman, the russian lawyer who said she had

dirt on hillary clinton. should they have gone back said, hey, listen, we have is a meeting. somebody saying they were from the russian government and had information on hillary clinton? >> you would think that the campaign would be extraordinarily careful about these types of contacts and if the fbi came and said to you, look, we think they're trying to infiltrate, at that point, most campaigns if i were counsel to a campaign would say, please, disclose. go back and disclose any contacts we are concerned about. but then again, after the meeting in particular you would expect there's would be a dialogue if there were anymore contacts made. >> there's a lot of noise right now from donald trump supporters, people on fox news, about robert mueller. saying that this investigation is not fair and he is not impartial. the white house says they don't plan to fire robert mueller, not even talking about it. but the president is calling certain things like the getting of transition e-mails very troubling. do you believe the white house

when they say they're not considering firing robert mueller? >> so if i could, there are two buckets we should think about and talk about here. the first is really a question about robert mueller and efforts made to discredit what he's doing. his work as a special prosecutor. and i know and believe in robert mueller an incredible amount, but it's important to remember, this is not about robert mueller. this is the american criminal justice system at work. as it goes forward during an investigation it's largely behind closed doors to protect the privacy of the people we investigate, but after cases are brought, there is no process that's more transparent or accountable than an actual criminal prosecution. so the public will see what's happening, and so i think putting all of this sort of focus on mueller misses the point, that this is actually how our system works and there is a mechanism of accountability and transparency in the courts and with lawyers. >> are you worried about the credibility? i was talking about this with senator cardin. when you have an agent and find

out there are text messages where they are calling the person that they're investigating an idiot and saying derogatory things about him. stakes are so high right now. we are living in very partisan times. very angry times where anyone's looking for any opening. does it concern you that there has been an opening given to those who want to attack this investigation? >> no question they gave an opening. there was a question of judgment here. but, again, at the end of the day, what matters is the -- if people get indicted, those charges will go forward before the public. there will be a chance to attack all of the evidence, a chance to question all of it, and so all of these investigations and all of these questions about the people on the team really are not relevant at the end of the day. if there are no charges brought it disappears. if there are charges brought, then this is the american criminal justice system we've all had for hundreds of years and believe and trust in and there's a process that has to be allowed to play out and there is a reason why prosecutors are independent and even people who

aren't, prosecutors have an enormous amount of -- we need this in the system. >> no idea when this investigation will come to a close. ann milgram, thank you for joining us. more on the russia investigation. plus it's not just senator manchin to stick around. even more democrats are calling on the minnesota senator to take his resignation back. that's next. isn't what's inside the box. it's what's inside the person who opens it. ♪ give ancestrydna, the only dna test that can trace your origins to over 150 ethnic regions... ♪ ...and open up a world of possibilities. ♪ save 20% for the holidays at ancestrydna.com. ( ♪ )

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, are sometimes the biggest.

welcome back. as you heard, we discussed with senator cardin high-profile democrats are saying senator franken should not leave congress after all. >> i definitely think he should not resign. i think he should submit himself, which he has willingly done, offered to do and go through this complete process of an extensive ethics review, and whatever the outcome is i will live with it. i can live with that. i've seen a person that, that his own caucus has turned on.

it just made me sick. it really reporting at least four senators are urging franken to reconsider resigning including two who issued statements calling for the resignation two weeks ago. go figure. senator franken didn't announce an official date for when he would resign, and in his good-bye speech earlier in the month but since thin, minnesota's governor selectsed the state senator to fill the seat. it is working with smith's team to if a sifacilitate the transi sets franken's team.

from our family to yours... may all your wishes come true this holiday season. welcome back. joining me now, our panel. commentary magazine etter, "new york post" columnist, and a morgan state professor and msnbc political contributor, and "usa today" washington bureau chief is with us. guys, great to see you. i want to talk about senator cardin.

he said it was an act of war for russia to interfere in the election. and he is the ranking member of the senate foreign relations committee. you have to imagine he chooses his words carefully, but when i asked him about whether he wants the president to declare war, he backs off. what's the strategy here? >> i think that's kind of irresponsible rhetoric, and i know this is not a popular thing to say, but if you're saying that russia's interference in our election is an act of war, then we've declared war on hundreds of other countries over the years, because what it is very likely they is behavior that the united states also is engaged in. that doesn't mean there's no reason for the investigation or that the president and his campaign team did not collude with russia, but we have to be careful about words like "act of war." have to be careful about backing up the fraises. unless those phrases. >> and talk about the president. susan, getting tough in that speech on russia and china. but can you take him seriously

when it comes to russia? especially since he has these friendly calls with vladimir putin and especially since he won't say interference actually even happened? >> we know it's very hard for the president to say critical things about russia and in general vladimir putin in particular. even though he did read a speech today that was critical in ways of russia and china. but this has been one of the mysteries that trump as a candidate and as a president is his warm feelings towards our adversary, russia and towards its provocative leader, and if you talk about an act of war, i don't think anybody is talking about sending missiles russia's way, but both democrats and republicans in the senate wish the president would take a harder stance against interference that we are confident took place by russia in the election in 2016. >> the speech itself was trumpian, obviously. he took a good portion of it, seven minutes or so, to bash his

predecessor, self-congratulating, much it, before he got to foreign policy. when you look at the foreign policy, does that look like trump's foreign policy or the foreign policy of trump's advisers? >> the foreign policy laid out in the speech and the national security document released today is a fairly conventional republican foreign policy doctrine with the removal of language about the need for democracy promotion, but the logic still being that if you're going to have a somewhat interventionist role in the world, obviously, you were doing in that footo think you can do d in the world. representative of the campaign, he sounded very much like a classic leftist arguing that american intervention in the world always goes wrong. it's bad for us. it's bad for them. we're no better than putin, he told bill o'reilly during the super bowl at the beginning of

the year. this doctrine takes this in a different direction, much more conventional direction. >> not isolationism, which people attributed to him during the campaign. more non-interventionalism. >> i'm not sure it's that. >> this was definitely different than that. you have this and also the mueller investigation and this noise about mueller not being fair. not being impartial. you have the text messages. now trump's lawyers -- i'm interested in this. trump's lawyers are going after mueller saying it was illegal, they got e-mails unfairly. weren't supposed to do that. instead of going to a grand jury saying this wasn't right they sent a letter to congress. why suddenly is trump's legal team make as break about what from what they've done so far working with mueller? >> i assume they were sfrooiz

surprise e surprised these e-mail was in mueller's possession, gotten another way, probably totally legitimately, because they make claims in the letters that make no sense. they claim executive privilege. this was during the transition. trump wasn't sworn into anything except his own corporation and cannot claim the right to withhold anybody on the grounds he is president. that's a weird and speechless argument. >> and also the attorney/client privilege, though? >> look, there's a lot of -- a trumpian foreign policy and a trumpian way of dealing with legal matters, which is make a lot of noise, scream, yell, and hope the other side gets afraid and backtracks on what they're doing. >> this is flu for the trump legal team. >> right. >> but not for trump personally. what jason describes is the trump legal strategy from the 1970s. >> exactly. this somewhat he has a tendency to do. look, mueller's not that dumb.

right? he's not going to acquire e-mails or anything else, caught and have an issue with and it speaks to the fact i think trump and his lawyers, even if the president privately thinks i'll be exxonerateexonerated, his te it's a problem. the witnesses that came forward and information they didn't know. wait. could be in trouble. time to raise the alarms. >> one last thing, susan. al franken. resigns or not resigning? >> he's going to be resigning. you can't announce you're going to resign and say, oops. i forgot. by the way, never mind tina smith, even though you've been basically named my successor. i do think we'll see reconsideration about whether the punishment fits the crime in all of these cases of accusations of sexual harassment. we're starting to see the beginning of a little backlash on the part of some about whether -- about the willingness both to believe women and force men accused to be fired, to step

down from their jobs and whatever we're seeing it now with senator franken, but no question he will resign. >> susan, the two democrats that told politico, asking for his resignation and now saying, no, i don't want it? >> only one is doing it on the record. senator manchin, who's been very outspoken. you don't hear it from senator schumer, close to franken or senator gillibrand who kind of led the charge. there's a feeling if democrats draw a bright line on the issue of sexual harassment they don't want to spent their chips defending senator franken. >> i want to do more but i'm told we're out of time. thank you all. stay with us. sounds like president trump will get his christmas wish. republicans appear to be on the verge of passes tax oui reform, but some members of the president's party are not onboard. that is ahead. how do you chase what you love

with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis? do what i did. ask your doctor about humira.

it's proven to help relieve pain and protect joints from further irreversible damage in many adults. humira works by targeting and helping to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. humira has been clinically studied for over 20 years. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ready for a new chapter? talk to your rheumatologist about humira. this is humira at work.

ahead, the big blue wave. democrats feeling a lot more confident these days after the doug jones win. but first, josh lipton that the cnbc market wrap. >> thanks, katy. stocks closed at record high on wall street and confidence grows that a major tax bill will be pessed hitting its 70th record close of the year. s&p jumped 14 points, record closing high and nasdaq finished

an all-time high topping 7000 for the first time. campbell's soup announced a deal to buy snyders/lance. that's it from cnbc. first in business worldwide. david. what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. ♪ everybody two seconds! ♪ "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. ♪

going somewhere? whoooo. here's some advice. tripadvisor now searches more... ...than 200 booking sites - to find the hotel you want and save you up to 30%. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor. more people shop online for the holidays than ever before. 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.

we are the tv doctors of america, and we may not know much about medicine, but we know a lot about drama. we also know that you can avoid drama by getting an annual check-up. so go, know, and take control of your health. it could save your life. cigna. together, all the way.

welcome back. house republicans are scheduled to meet in just a few minutes to discuss the gop's final tax bill. this major overhaul of the u.s. tax code is on track to become law. the house is set to vote tomorrow. assuming it passes goes on to the senate to hold a vote and put it on the president's desk before the end of the week. here's a bit of what's actually in the final bill. it cuts the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. it doubles the standard deduction, meaning rear likely to see fewer people itemizing taxes. keeps seven tax brackets, lowers the rates and changes the income

thresholds. eliminates the obamacare individual mandate and doubles the starting point for the estate tax. the corporate tax are permanent. the individual cuts expire in 2025. no democrats are expected to support this plan and there are still a few republicans out there who aren't onboard either. one of those republicans is congressman lee zeldin of new york. congressman good to see you. thanks for joining us. >> great to see you as well. >> why are you voting no on this bill? >> there are good aspects of the bill. there are problematic aspects. i'm a new york congressman representing a new york congressional district. the proposal to cap the state and local tax deduction at $10,000 can be a difference for some of my middle income taxpayers between whether or not they come out as a loser on this bill versus a winner. there's a difference between having a $10,000 cap and a $20,000 and $25,000 cap, and i

have a problem -- there are good aspects of this bill, but vie a problem with paying for those good aspects on the backs of any hard-working middle-income long islander i represent. >> the president's a new yorker. long island, your district, i believe, voted for donald trump. does the president care about your voters, that they're concerned about this tax bill? >> well, the president, i'm sure, would have been pleased with many different variations of this bill. he wanted to see this bill get done and come to his desk. i know he was very focused, for example, on the corporate tax rate. originally he said 15%, then 20%. then a 21% number in the final product that was very important to him. the state and local tax deduction piece, though it wasn't one that he was pushing. that was something that was pushed hard here in congress. i have some colleagues who believe that they subsidized new york and what is so important to point out is that new york is a

net contributor to the federal coffers. we send more to washington and the get back in return. look at overall tax and spending policy. but we also need to point out, that the reason why our state and local tax deduction is so high because state and local taxes are so high. all levels of government, really, need to work on this bill. be able to work on tax relief in order for this bill to be effective for all 50 states. we need that from not just up in albany, city hall, also, i have 123 school districts on long island. you have to find efficiencies wherever you k. are your republican colleagues not concerned about new york because it's a blue state? >> i think i have a lot of colleagues who believe that they are subsidizing new york, and that's why i tried to tell them about the highway trust fund or the way that amtrak profits from the northeast corridor, lines used to subsidize routes on trains that oftentimes have

practically no one even on it. i have to go through other aspects of tax policy and spending policy, because while new york might be a net beneficiary from the state and local tax deduction, even with the state and local tax deduction, new york remains a net contributor. so there's that back and forth where i'm looking at this from, with one pair of glasses on. they're looking at it from another. their representing their states, their districts, and i get that, but i as a new york congressman representing a new york district, i understand that they're not going to fight for new york for me, and that's why i and other members, congressman king and donovan and faso, stefanic, have all been part of this effort and the $10,000 deduction was certainly progress, because there was a proposal on the table for a while to fully eliminate state and local tax deduction. but the deduction has been around over 100 years one of the ways abraham lincoln helped finance the civil war and

something we believe strongly -- by the way, while i support fully maintaining state and local tax deduction, get rid of it? a better policy, a good policy, better policy, phase it down over two, three, four years, let's say, to a number that fully protects the middle class. middle income itemizers, better policy than this policy where you put a bill on the president's desk on christmas, and it goes into effect january 1st of 2018 and going to andrew cuomo or bill de blasio and say you need to fix your tax code by new year's. it's an unreasonable request and an impossible request and why i was advocating for a better policy. a number phased down capture everyone, and make a change, maintain its entirety. >> a couple other topics, kongsman. the president national security speech today. the white house indicating they want to look into russian pop gand da.

do you take them seriously when they say that? es special areally when the president himself won't say that russia meddled in our elections and distributed quite a bit of propaganda? >> i definitely do, because i have spoken to members of the administration. we've had -- we just had a meeting last week. >> i know you've spoken to members of the administration, but the president has not come ound a out and forcefully said russia meddled? >> i can't speak for the president. you ask make the observations i and have your listeners have. i'm saying as far as administration efforts, just last week met with the secretary of state and he was speaking about strategy across the map, but including russia. i mean, i've seen it with different members of the administration, an acknowledgement with regards to russian activities and a concern that if you don't deal with full accountability for what happened in the past, that this is something that russia will

continue to try to meddle in the future. that's a concern that i have and i do believe very strongly that he has many people who are around him, i mean, i've heard it firsthand, our concerned with that russian activity from the part and wanting to prevent it from happening again. >> no doubt about that. see if the president ever comes out and says they meddled and takes it as seriously as staffers and his cabinet do. if the president tried to fire robert mueller, what would you do? >> he keeps reiterating over of and over again and i watched chuck todd's interview this weekend with mark short just yesterday morning. they had an exchange. mr. short reiterated again that there's no conversation about that whatsoever. they're not planning on doing it. i think everyone -- >> they said that sort of thing in the part and then they've -- they've turned around and done those things, but if he tries to do it, what would you do, congressman? >> yeah. i don't think that, that that's advisable. i believe that the white house understands that as well. i actually would say that the

best case scenario, if i was -- in the white house and i was looking at the mueller investigation would be for it to come to a conclusion, and i know there's been a lot of cooperation. there's been a lot of testimony, a lot of interviews, whether it's, you know, trying to get evidence or it's trying to depose a particular person who might have answers. there have been some people who have pled. others with charges pending against them. i think the best case scenario would be for the investigation to come to a con clues, not prematurely. just continuing to cooperate and hoping it just doesn't get dragged on for years which would be a worst-case scenario. >> congressman zeldin, thanks for joining us. >> thank you. democrats are anything but blue these days, fired up for 2018 and we have got the numbers to prove it. next.

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.

more people shop online for the holidays than ever before. 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. welcome back. democrats are fired up, and they've got good reason to be heading into the 2018 midterm elections. our latest nbc news wall street journal poll says democrats hold a double digit advance with 50% of people saying they should control congress next year versus only 39% who say republicans should. the last time democrats held a double digit lead and hit on this was back in september 2008. right before the party won back

the white house and picked up a sub staub number of seats in the house and the senate. democrats are excited to turn out. 59% of dems tell us they have a high level of interest in next year's election compared to just 49% for republicans. as our friends at nbc's first blog wrote this morning, as long as democrats hold this kind of advantage and intensity, republicans will be swimming in dangerous waters for the midterms. we'll be right back with more "mtp daily." ♪ give ancestrydna, the only dna test that can trace your origins to over 150 ethnic regions... ♪ ...and open up a world of possibilities. ♪ save 20% for the holidays at ancestrydna.com.

more people shop online for the holidays than ever before. 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. welcome back. the panel is back, john, casey and susan. democrats are enthusiastic about 2018, 59% to 49%. if i learned anything in 2016, voter enthusiasm matters. >> hate to throw rain on the parade but as political scientist here, the way that

republicans redrew congressional districts in 2012, even if on the generic ballot would need 52% to 53% to retake the house with the way the districts have been redrawn. i think be enthusiastic. >> is jery mandering going to do them in? >> districts that hillary clinton won now represented by republicans. need 26 seats to take control of the house. real problem is election is not now but 10 1/2 months way. lot of things can happen. can change the landscape. at the moment this could hardly be better for democrats. >> bob mueller could come back with a conclusion in 10 1/2 months.

>> or in reverse despite this is something most of the audience won't believe, the tax bill could have positive economic effect and have good numbers. nevertheless, a wave is a wave, it's a national move from one party to the other and it will knock people out whom you never expect. one thing democrats have done that's very smart is put candidates in every district in which there is a republican who represents in the house. they have 240 candidates. that means if a wave comes and someone standing there who hasn't discredited himself, could be people in house you never expect to lose or win. >> steve bannon going to be a problem? >> he's going to try to be. he's been the best democratic consultant out there, everybody he works for seems to end up losing on the republican side. but also see this, so many republican retirements because

these guys put their fingers to the win, i'm not going to spend next ten months working to raise money and get knocked out because of the guy on 1600 pennsylvania avenue. and we su in alabama, when they put up about candidates they win. >> barely won in alabama and he was accused molester. >> massive voter suppression. win is win. >> for democrat to win in alabama, incredible. roy moore was historically poor candidate and doug jones pretty good one. he sought that nomination before it was clear this would be a good year for democrat in alabama. that's what democrats need to do and are trying to do even in long shots. what was said, wave is wave and

washes over things like gerrymandering and money advantages and history and number of times been elected. question is do we have a wave to give democrats the house or tsunami that gives them the senate as well. >> al franken, you don't think he's going to resign? >> very good reason to think he might not. larry craig, senator from idaho, arrested -- >> comparing them. >> he was arrested for solicitation in a men's room, pled guilty, tried to -- left senate or said he was going to resign. tried to withdraw the guilty plea, not allowed to do it in the court and withdrew his resignation in the grounds that people of idaho wanted him. >> will democrats be okay if franken stays? >> not their choice, it's his.

bullied him into resigning and he may unresign. >> he has a successor named and office said they're working with him. stay tuned i guess. guys, thank you very much. happy monday. federal government's hunt for ufos, next. . the morning walk was so peaceful. until... it... wasn't. don't let type 2 diabetes get between you and your heart. even if you reach your a1c goal you are still at risk for heart attack or stroke.

talk to your health care provider today about diabetic heart disease. and find out more at heartoftype2.com. your heart and type 2 diabetes. make the connection. 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. was supposed to be a wake reup call for our government?sh people all across the country lost their savings, their pensions and their jobs. i'm tom steyer and it turned out that the system

that had benefited people like me who are well off, was, in fact, stacked against everyone else. it's why i left my investment firm and resolved to use my savings for the public good. but here we are nine years later and this president and the republican congress are making a bad situation even worse. they won't tell you that their so called "tax reform" plan is really for the wealthy and big corporations, while hurting the middle class. it blows up the deficit and that means fewer investments in education, health care and job creation. it's up to all of us to stand up to this president. not just for impeachable offenses, but also to demand a country where everyone has a real chance to succeed. join us. your voice matters.

scully, you're not going to believe this.

in case you missed it, the truth is out there. even former senate majority leader harry reed says so. see? tweeting about "new york times" story about the pentagon's mysterious ufo program. advanced aerospace threat identification program. the lone gunmen. goal? investigate ufos, like this one. >> my gosh. >> there's -- look at that thing. it's fascinating. >> the pentagon says the program officially ended in 2012 but "times" reports that $22 million program which began in 2007 is still in exist eps. asthy say in basement office of the fictional fbi, lie is convincingly hidden between two

truths. i want to believe. no matter how paranoid you are, you're not paranoid enough. that's all for me. chuck will be back tomorrow with more "mtp daily." "the beat" with ari melber starts right now. not elvis's face but i'll take it. >> interesting that ufo stuff is coming out right now. not a conspiracy theorist but why now? >> what are they trying to bury ari? >> we just ask the questions. katy tur, thank you very much. trump administration under severe strain thanks to new controversy whether tens of thousands of e-mails written by trump aides could be helping bob mueller's russia probe. plus growing efforts to undermine or sideline robert mueller and fbi warned