impromptu interview saying it makes america look bad but they have the right to do whatever they want with the justice department. under arrest for taking over dozens of cameras around washington just days before the president's inauguration. what we now know about what threat they posed. that is coming up. and red flag warnings as the gop gears up for the 2018 midterms with the threat of an energized democratic party looming. what lessons can we learn from 2017? good day. i'm steve kornacki in for andrea mitchell with the latest deep dive on president trump's thoughts on policy and the mueller investigation. in an interview with the "new york times," 30 minutes of unfiltered access to president trump at president trump's grill room in florida where mr. trump

truly made two opinions crystal clear. number one, he thinks there was no collusion between the trump campaign and russia, and the special counsel will treat him, he believes, fairly. msnbc's garrett haake is live in west palm beach, so garrett, this is a print interview, apparently no advisers in the room. trump and the reporter. we get unfiltered thoughts. takes through the highlights of what the president is saying. >> reporter: sure. so you have donald trump and a reporter at a table in his restaurant, as you said, essentially unfiltered for 30 minutes. the way the interview was conducted, it's a lot of trump driving the bus here and giving his own thoughts. he returned time and time again to themes we're all familiar with now, talking about his electoral victory, how he says repeatedly something like 15 or 16 times that there was no collusion in the campaign. he accuses democrats of potentially colluding with russia. and he talks at some length about the mueller investigation,

and this is particularly interesting, because while he describes mueller as a fair person who seems to be treating him fairly, he talks about the investigation itself in somewhat negative terms. he says -- i want to read a quote from this. the investigation, quote, makes the country look bad. it makes the country look very bad, and it puts the country in a very bad position. so the sooner it's worked out, the better it is for the country. i think the last sentence in that, most people would agree with, moving toward the conclusion of this at some point, but you do have some sort of cross branding there between whether this makes the president look bad or the country look bad, and you see president trump sort of letting those two things overlap. but the thing that's striking to me about all the mueller conversation in this interview and over the last six or seven months of his investigation is he's one of the very few people this president is not willing to criticize directly. everybody else involved in the russia investigation, fbi and

other parties are fair game. either good staff work or good instincts there, perhaps, by the president to not engage with the person who probably controls his fate going into the next year more than any single person in washington. >> garrett, as well something i think that jumped out at a lot of people, the context for the particular line i'm going to mention here was about hillary clinton, about calls to reopen that e-mail investigation for the justice department to do that, but president trump in response to that question says he has the right as president to order the justice department basically to do as he pleases, to look into any area that he wants the justice department to look into. that is a theory of the presidency and a theory of presidential power that could at least potentially have wider ranging implications than just the hillary clinton e-mail question. >> reporter: sure. there is almost a context to that that defies the

longstanding traditions of the justice department to operate as an independent arbiter that the justice department thinks are worthy things to investigate and prosecute and pursue rather than the president. the justice department does not operate at the president's whim, and steve, i think it does illustrate a little bit the conflict the president has with jeff sessions, his attorney general. there's another quote in that interview about comparing jeff sessions to eric holder, and that eric holder protected his president. the president looks at the justice department as an arm that he can control despite the tradition. that's just not the case. and it puts into broader context that ongoing conflict between the president and one of his erstwhile most kindred spirits in his cabinet. >> after giving that interview, he's back on twitter. the daca situation still unresolved. democrats demanding resolution

there. you can see the democrats have been told and fully understand there can be no daca without the desperately needed wall at the southern border and end to the terrible chain migration and lottery system , et cetera. what do we know about that heading into 2018? >> reporter: this is going to be the big fight on capitol hill over the next couple months. there has been, by all accounts, a good faith effort by republicans and democrats in congress and the white house to work out an immigration package that would include some kind of solution for daca recipients, for dreamers, but would also include increased border security, intern enforcement, the lottery system perhaps going away. but the wall is such a third rail for democrats. the idea that democrats would support the financing a wall on the southern border in any capacity as part of this deal, i

think it's going to be extremely problematic. and if that's a line in the sand for this president, that fight is going to be a lot uglier in the spring. >> nbc's garrett haake down there in west palm beach. garrett, thank you for that. the president preceded that interview by saying, in my opinion, they should come to me on infrastructure which they have come to me on daca, and they should definitely come to me on health care because we can do bipartisan health care, we can do bipartisan infrastructure and we can do bipartisan daca. the president in that "new york times" interview. let's bring in republican and white house reporter ashley parker. ashley, let me start out with you. on some of the headlines generated in this interview, is the president projecting confidence with where this

mueller investigation is going? he said there is no collusion. he's not expressing any ill or hostile feelings toward the special counsel and just generally, i think, confidence there. what is the mood around president trump? what is the mood inside the white house when the subject of this investigation is raised? >> the mood inside the white house when this subject is raised is they want absolutely nothing to do with this. the president may be calm and confident, as you mentioned, and sort of waiting for it to fairly wrap up, but if you reach out to any of his advisers to talk about anything involving russia, the first thing they do is say, that's a question for the lawyers, i have nothing to do with this, and they also don't want to in e-mails because they're deathly afraid of personal exposure. they don't want to have to hire a lawyer, talk to investigators, go before congress. they want to steer as clear of this as humanly possible.

>> and susan, what did you make of what the president had to say there, both in comments about mueller, confidence this is not going to land with any sort of revelation of collusion or any kind of wrongdoing? what did you make of what you're hearing? >> it would do the president well to remember that the investigation into president clinton was about a real estate deal and it ended up in a blue dress. you don't get to choose where an investigation goes. he may say there was no collusion and there may not be, but that doesn't mean there won't be other things come up. we've already seen four indictments, two guilty pleas. so the president can talk about what he wants. he keeps saying it over and over enough, it's going to be true, but that's not the case. so ashley is exactly right. the white house team is very nervous. the president gets very uncomfortable every time there is a story about what mueller is looking at, and they should proceed very cautiously. >> listen, this is a battle --

in some ways this is not an unprecedented thing. we've seen past presidents that have had a counsel in the last three years. back in the 1990s, that was an investigation even before the lewinsky scandal emerged. that drove the president crazy. you could see the ken starrs emerge. behind the scenes maybe you're seeing something different than you see in this interview. the question becomes we don't know how much longer this will last, we don't know if this will extend into other areas, and this posture we're seeing from this interview, will that change at some point? >> i don't think it will endure publicly, speesespecially in tht line about his control over the department of justice. it crosses the line between the president being ah

authoritative. the more he engages in this, the more he promotes the blus ter and this rigidity about stepping away from the investigation and allowing it to play itself out, voters are going to look at this and say, wait a minute, do you respect the rule of law here? how much are you allowing the process and the people who are actually charged with finding justice here, how much are you stepping on top of them and actually obstructing them in a sense? so i think the american people at some point are going to start to say, you know what? you need to take a step back. >> ashley, the other thing i think people talking about today, there's many things people are talking about, but one is the comments about jeff sessions, the comments about donald trump picking his attorney general. trump in this interview reiterating that criticism. he's talked about sessions recusing himself from this russia investigation, basically

saying, hey, look, eric holder protected obama when he was attorney general and seeming by implication to say my attorney general is not protecting me. this relationship between trump and jeff sessions, is this something to be watching in 2018 in terms of how long sessions stays in, or is he dug in? >> well, it's certainly something to be watching. if we know one thing it's that the president demands absolute loyalty and he believes jeff sessions has not given that to him. i was also struck in the same way we discussed before how the president is a little softer on mueller than we've seen him be, both publicly and privately, for the way the president has spoken about jeff sessions earlier this year in tweets, public comments and certainly privately. i've had members of congress tell me that the president can't stand his attorney general. so for that sort of backdrop, the president again was quite measured in his remarks to the "new york times." but yes, i think the relationship is fraught. he was incredibly frustrated

after sessions recused himself. it doesn't look like it's going to be something to recover. that doesn't necessarily mean sessions is one of these people who will be leaving the administration at the one-year mark, but it's interesting to watch because there's definitely a tension there. >> the other question heading into 2018 is legislation. republicans in 2017 with this tax bill. they've got that first big legislative achievement. where, if anything, will they roll this in 2018? you have trump talking about his relationship with republican leaders. he says it's an unbelievably great relationship with 98% of the republican congress and senators. they love me and i love them. i know more about the big bills than any other president in office. >> he's also the best cpa ever. >> can you translate that at all into expectations for 2018? there is talk paul ryan wants to go the direction of medicare, social security requirements. the president is talking about infrastructure. mitch mcconnell doesn't seem

interested in those third rail issues. where do you think this goes in terms of priority for 2018? >> the first legislative priority will be keeping the government funded. in mid-january, they'll have to come up against that. then they probably have to face daca as a result. any big legislative achievements is so unlikely because we're also in the time of congressional primaries. democrats will not want to give anything, because if they're facing primaries on the left, they can't be agreeing with president trump. republicans will have to be in a very vicarious position in swing states because how far can they go with the president and still keep supporters on the floor? >> is there a consensus at all about if they could go somewhere legislatively big, would it be more on that infrastructure side? >> it would go more toward infrastructure. everybody was expecting infrastructure to be done with tax reform at the beginning of this year, not starting next year.

it is challenging. despite what the president said, infrastructure is not easy. it's hard. it costs a lot of money. after the deficit we now track as a result of the tax cuts, to add further deficit is going to be very problematic for a large chu chunk of republicans to absorb. >> on the subject of the infrastructure, this is the one that's been out there since the election last year where supposedly donald trump could get democrats in some of the states who voted for him. he had a comment about joe mansion. joe mansion, democrat, west virginia. this is what trump said about him. jose nie is a nice guy, but he . i say, let's do bipartisan. good, let's go, and then you don't hear from him. manchin says, i don't hear from the white house. if joe manchin doesn't buckle, i can't imagine the white house is going to.

>> on what susan said earlier, there are more candidates running on the democratic side challenging republican members of congress. there are more now declared candidates than there have been in the last three midterm elections combined. that means there is a motivated electorate. there are folks out there that are moved to challenge republicans now and paint them with a broad brush in line with donald trump. i don't think you're going to see that kind of engagement by democrats to try to work with this presidency because they just don't -- >> infrastructure, if it's, hey, guys, let's write a big infrastructure bill, get some jobs -- >> here's the problem with that. if thr three-quarters of infrastructure are spent on a state and government level. i don't see the president working to get that done. we've got new bridges in the state. you see other governors doing the same thing.

i just don't see that the president of the administration has the wherewithall to go into the states, and some of them are deeply blue states, to be able to actually get this done. >> we have a new york political fight breaking. i'm going to call that off. thank you, though, to ashley parker, susan del fersio and michael. cyber insecurity. two romanian hackers now facing charges in the u.s. after they hacked washington, d.c. police cameras just days after the inauguration. this is "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. 10 seconds. a stick! a walking stick! eiffel tower, mount kilimanjaro! (ding) time! sorry, it's a tandem bicycle. what? what?! as long as sloths are slow, you can count on geico saving folks money. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. 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. when it comes to travel, i sweat the details. late checkout... ...down-alternative pillows... ...and of course, price. tripadvisor helps you book a... ...hotel without breaking a sweat. because we now instantly... ...search over 200 booking sites ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. don't sweat your booking. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.

charged two romanian hackers for taking over two-thirds of washington, d.c.'s police surveillance cameras just days before president trump's inauguration earlier this year. prosecutors are calling it a ransomware scheme, and according to a federal complaint unsealed

thursday, the cameras were unable to record for several days. the alleged hackers were arrested earlier this month in buick bucharest. joining me now, assistant fbi of counter intelligence and justice reporter julia ainsley. julia, you've written this story, hackers getting control of surveillance cameras in washington, d.c. what do we know about it? what was the intent here? was this part of something bigger? take us through what you found out. >> what's interesting is this is about a year-long investigation. this started in january. they found out about it january 12. that's just eight days before president trump was inaugerated. there was a secret service investigation, which means there was somewhat potential risk to the security of the presidency. the secret service investigator detailed everything he found, and that led to an international arrest warrant. these two people, both in their 20s, were arrested in bucharest just earlier this month. we know that they were able to

remotely hack into computers that control surveillance of outdoor video cameras, and there are about 123 cameras. that's 65% of all of the cameras that the metropolitan police department uses in d.c. so the two big concerns that jump out here are, a, that you're able to remotely hack into computers like this from a foreign country, and b, that they were able to get these outside cameras, in other words, showing footage of a place like the national mall just days before presidential inauguration. but the good news is, of course, that they stopped it before the inauguration. bad news is it's the vulnerability that this shows. >> obviously you think the vulnerability not just of d.c. but any city and for all sorts of possibilities there. let's talk more here, move back to this interview that president trump gave, some of the comments he made about the doj, about jeff sessions, about the state of this investigation, the mueller investigation into russia and the 2016 campaign.

frank, let me ask you about that. we were talking in the last block about the president's tone toward the special counsel robert mueller. not talking about him in a hostile way, basically saying he has confidence in him. what did you make of the tone, the public tone the president was striking there toward the special counsel? >> i think it's important to not take this statement as an isolated statement. it has to be taken within the context of previous similar statements. and if you do that, you see that -- at least my belief is that this is part of the larger defense strategy, and here's why. we've heard the president's counsel ty cobb say things like, the white house interviews are done. we've heard the president, and even republican members of congress, say, this is ending soon. i think the article -- the interview today -- or yesterday with the "new york times," the president says, i think i'm going to be treated fairly by bob mueller. here's what i think is happening. i think he's appealing to his base that he's a reasonable man. he believes he's going to be

treated fairly. the problem with that is fairly is a subjective word, and it's in the eyes of the beholder. when the beholder is donald trump, we're left to have him define fairly. and that could be that he thinks it's unfair when he gets interviewed, which is coming, i believe, by the mueller team. or when his financial records become exposed as a result of the deutsche bank subpoena. so he gets to define what's fair and not. he can declare any moment, i'm no longer being treated fairly and his base will respond to that. >> julia, also, this comment from the president in his interview with the "new york times" basically suggesting -- it seemed to be a shot at his attorney general, jeff sessions, but by talking about eric holder, the attorney general under president obama, and donald trump saying in this interview that eric holder protected that president. i won't get into loyalty, but i will tell you holder protected president obama, totally

protected him. when you look at the things that they did and holder protected the president, i'll be honest, i have great respect for that, i'll be honest. do we know specifically what the president believes eric holder protected president obama from? >> i talked to officials at the justice department under holder and the obama administration, and they pointed to a number of times where the attorney general did not come to the protection of the president. at times he actually went against him. one of the first instances was when eric holder appointed u.s. attorney john durham to do an investigation into torture, to make sure the cia was following guidelines that were set up under the bush administration that defined what torture was and to make sure they didn't go into that territory. rahm emanuel, the chief of staff of obama at that time, came on tv and said he hoped that eric holder would not do that. and he did. another time we know the justice

department under holder started investigating the irs for targeting tea party groups. this was, again, not a place that a democratic administration really would have wanted their justice department to go, but he did that, anyway. so this idea that trump is creating is sort of another shot, perhaps, at his attorney general to say, i expect loyalty from you. we know he didn't go that far and use the word "loyalty" in the article, and they point that out, but it seems he's trying to say -- like what frank was getting at, the issue of fairness, that he would consider attorney general for him to treat him with the same respect that holder did obama. but as we can see, that relationship is always supposed to be separate and independent, especially on law enforcement issues. >> frank, there is also this question the president got into this about his authority when it comes to the actions of the department of justice. the president saying in this interview that he had the absolute right to do what i want to do with the justice department. and then he says for purposes of hopefully thinking i'm going to

be treated fairly, i've stayed uninvolved with this particular matter, referring to the hillary clinton e-mail case. but the broader question of the president's authority to dictate to the department of justice what it looks into, who it looks into, the cases it takes up. he is citing in this interview alan dershowitz, a legal scholar, who said under the constitution, there is no legal limit on that. i know the scholars disagree with that. how clearly defined, though, are the lines when it comes to what a president can and can't tell the justice department? >> well, the president's authority to act in that regard comes through executive orders. but that's the limit of his power. so it seems to me that it's still disturbing that the president thinks he has this ultimate authority over the other branches of government. the staff really needs to dust off kind of a middle school civics textbook and just explain there are three separate but equal branches and you don't have the role of authority over the justice department and it's

the attorney of the people fighting for justice in the oval office. the power is not absolute and he does not have authority to open and close investigations. >> all right, frank and julia, thanks to both of you for the time. coming up, "paper wars." one of the season's hottest movies putting a spotlight on a major cover-up about the vietnam war. that's why a battle of the "new york times" and the pentagon papers are resonating so strongly with americans today. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" today only on msnbc. i'm ginny and i quit smoking with chantix. it takes a lot of planning to be a smoker. it's like when am i gonna be able to sneak out of here

and go have a cigarette? i just knew i had to quit, and chantix was the method that actually worked for me. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. chantix reduced my urge to smoke. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. thanks to chantix, i did it. ask your doctor if chantix is right for you. many insurance plans cover chantix for a low or $0 copay.

in an era of political scandals, bombshell reports and big scoops, two of the country's largest newspapers are leading the pack in an often chaotic news cycle. the "new york times" and the "washington post" are locked in a fierce competition, struggling to break some of the most significant times of the trump era, racing to the time when both seeked to write the pentagon papers. this brought about the spielberg movie "the post." >> i'm exposing years of government secrets. >> is that legal? >> what do you think we do here for a living, kid? >> i might have something. >> must be precious cargo. >> it's just government secrets. >> he was barred from publishing any more documents dealing with the vietnam war. >> we'll be at the supreme court next week.

>> meaning -- >> we could all go to prison. >> joining me now is nbc news clair atkinson. clair, what i find so interesting looking at that and thinking about today is that's the early 1970s. there is no internet, no social media, no cable television. newspapers were pretty much the only game in town other than three broadcast networks. so it makes sense that newspapers are sort of leading the charge back then. 40-plus years later, though, in this era of media everywhere, it seems surprise to go me when you think about it that media plays such a role. >> yes. and the "new york times" and the "washington post," trump has turned politics into pop culture. everybody wants to know the latest, what he's tweeting, what he's thinking, the russia investigations. the two papers have been battling back and forth since the '70s. you mentioned "the times" had the big pentagon scoop, the

washingtwas washingt"washington post" had t stories, but the owner of the "washington post" has the best data scientist on the planet trying to figure out how to convert those free readers to paid readers. we see today that donald trump has a lot of animosity about amazon. he's tweeting about how amazon gets breaks with the post office that delivers all the packages and he's tweeting today about whether there should be extra, perhaps, tax on amazon and penalizing them in some way. >> interestingly, though, as we're reminded this morning with what we're talking about here, the president does still have this regard for the -- he calls it the failing "new york times," but who did he just give this 30-minute interview to? >> he gave them great scoop. in that interview he says, i think the media is going to go soft on me soon because i'm

going to win the next election. i'm going to be great for ratings, great for subscriptions. i think that's true. people can't get enough of reading about everything that's going on in politics these days and the russia investigations and other topics like sexual harrassment. the two newspapers have been battling on that front, too. >> obviously we're in a moment of transformation in the media, but we talk so much about the newspaper industry dying, and i think the local papers, the local small daily where i grew up and all around the country, they seem to be in a really tough spot. you look at "the times" and you look at "the post," they're adding subscribers this year. >> they have. >> you see these elite newspapers still alive. is that where it's going? >> i think people have decided if you want quality and you want to know where this information is coming from, then you better get a subscription to an outlet that's going to give you something resembling the truth as opposed to some of the stuff that pops up on facebook and

social media. i think that's helped them. it also helped "the new yorker." whenever donald trump attacks an outlet, the subscription numbers increase significantly. one interesting thing that's changed, the newspapers used to be a business of circulation figures and advertising revenue. that business is dying, and both these outlets are in the business now of collecting digital subscriptions. they want people to pay. >> it's interesting. so much about the big advertisers in the past now more consumer driven. >> absolutely. >> clair atkinson, thank you very much. >> thank you. danger, paul ryan. lots of red flags for the republican party showing they could be hit with a blue wave in 2018. we're going to take a look ahead at the all-important midterms over on the big board. we've got that fired up for you. this is "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc.

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.

eight hundred dollars when wet switched our auto and home insurance. with liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey. oh. that's my robe. is it? you could save seven hundred eighty two dollars when liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance.

all right, well, it's the end of 2017 which means it's about to be the start of 2018, which means here comes an election year. a midterm election year, and what's everybody already talking about? are the republicans in trouble in 2018 in the trump midterm? it is a blue wave for democrats building. that is the big question raised by 2017 to be answered in 2018. we say it's the big question raised by this year for a couple reasons. we want to take you through them. what did we learn this year that suggests maybe a blue wave is

forming? number one, there is this. we end the year with this question, the congressional ballot, the generic congressional ballot. you ask which party do you want to control congress? democrats right now have an average lead in this question by 13 points. that can change over time, that can change in 2018, but historically when a party has been anywhere near this position a year out, that has generally boded pretty well for the party in its chances. democrats gaining a pretty strong advantage on this generic congressional vote. there is also this, the president's approval rating. historically, again, when you look past midterms, when things are going really bad for the presidential party, it's not surprising. obama was at 45%, george w. bush was at 38%, republicans lost the house in 2006. see the pattern?

look where trump is ending the year. 38% right in line. even at the low end of that danger zone for presidents. that's what history says. the other concerning thing for trump when you look at these numbers, that 38%, he hasn't been much higher since he took power. his first week in office, his approval rating was 46%. that's the high mark for trump. he's been 46% and lower. so again, to get out that fof t danger zone in 2018, he would have to be higher in approval for 2018. that's the question for 2018. there is also this. we've had some special elections already this year, and there is a pretty strong trend that they're suggesting. again, it started in the spring this year. kansas, a congressional district around wichita. trump had won the district by 27 points. open seat, special election. republicans win it. they get to brag about that, but the margin was 7, a swing there of 20 points toward the democrats. we saw is a similar move in montana.

15-point swing. south carolina, 15-point swing. alabama, we know the story down there. democrats actually win there. there is that race in the suburbs of atlanta. that's the one exception. but again, you're seeing a pretty strong trend suggested there. historically when you see this kind of movement toward one party in the special elections, historically that suggested something is coming in the midterm. so there is a lot of signs there right now as 2017 ends. the democrats could be in for something big in 2018. but you have to keep in mind, as we say, it's not just that things could change, there are a couple other things to keep an eye on in 2018. the number one thing is this. the oddity of the president so far, he's so unpopular in the approval ratings, and yet people think the economy is doing well. at some point is his approval rating, is his party's popularity going to sync up at all, or start to sync up with the strong economy. it's also this, the simple trump

factor. the trump era of american politi politics. how sure are we that the rules that applied in the past, how sure are we they apply with the era of trump. he was rock bottom in every single polling area. they didn't think he was competent, they didn't think he was trustworthy. he scored lower than hillary clinton in all of those, yet he ended up in the election. how sure are we that everything is going to proper measure what's going on? that's a big one for the entire trump era. we'll get a lot of use out of this board in 2018 as we build toward midterm elections. coming up. cold shoulder. president trump getting a lot of heat for mocking global warming as the east coast shivers through a third day of arctic temperatures. this is "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. the most shocking result was that i'm 26% native american.

i had no idea. just to know this is what i'm made of, this is where my ancestors came from. and i absolutely want to know more about my native american heritage. it's opened up a whole new world for me. discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com.

they were made public 40"ne" failed to unveil them defense secretary james mattis speaking to reporters today at the pentagon about the fight against isis. >> i think it's a brand with a diminishing appeal but the appeal is still there for people who were attracted to this sort of thing they stand for. >> the terrorist network is losing ground in syria and iraq but has gained strength in afghanistan. isis has claimed responsibility for a suicide bomb attack at a cobble cultural center yesterday that killed at least 41 people, including two children, and

injured 84 others. joining me now is nbc's pentagon correspondent hans nichol. hans, we heard from the defense secretary today. at the end of 2017, what is the overall message about isis' strength? >> in 2017, isis lost a tremendous amount of territory. they lost iraq, their caliphate. president trump will claim he accelerated it. they have gained a lot of territory away from isis. what trump did slightly different cwas that in raqqa thy surrounded the city. in mosul, it began in the obama administration, and they left an escape hatch so some isis fighters could flee. for the most part, though, the strategy is the same. that is by, with and through strategy, they wanted to have local forces take back this

territory from isis fighters. that's just in iraq and syria. the big difference we've seen with the trump administration is the expansion of the war. we had deaths in nugir and yemen. they were fighting isis-affiliated groups. what's unclear is whether they were getting command and control from isis headquarters, especially since most of the leadership of isis has been decimated. that's the overall overview. i think the big bit of news we had from secretary mattis is he said more americans will be going to syria. he said they would be diplomats and contractors to protect those diplomats. remember, there are about 2,000 u.s. forces in syria. earlier this month he announced about 300 marines would be coming back. they had mostly been providing artillery support. the idea that more americans will be heading to syria in 2018 was new, and we did hear that from mattis. we'll be drilling down on just what that means and what kind of forces he's thinking about sending.

steve? >> hans nichols at the pentagon. hans, thaur fnk you for that. meanwhile, trump taking to his favorite message on twitter. the president tweeting out in temperatures. trump tweeting out in the east it could be the coldest new year's eve on record. perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old global warming that our country wasn't going to pay to protect. bundle up. tim, on this global warming/climate change tweet from the president, i was talking to somebody about his tweeting habits saying the president has the instincts to troll. he puts things out there just to get a reaction, just to get a rise from his critics and from his opponents. is that how you look at this tweet on global warming or is there something more? is there more of a policy component to this? >> steve, i had the exact same

initial reaction. this is sort of a trump 101, you know, master lesson in how to antagonize and aggravate your political opponents on social media. i did think initially, but on a second read i think this is also sort of a lagging justification of the u.s. withdrawal from the paris climate accords. of course, that was rather contentious at the time. there was pushback from within the administration, from high ranking members of the administration when he made that decision. so, i think that that continues to be a source of some tension in the west wing. i think trump is sticking an eye in his political opponents. >> i think one of the challenges coming into 2017, for the political wofrld, for citizens of this country is how to interpret, how to incorporate trump's twitter use into his

understanding of the presidency. do we have a better grip on that at the end of 2017? >> i think what we think -- what we've come to understand is he's not going to stop doing it and these tweets are not going to settle down into something that resembles sort of a more normal style of presidential communication. and i think this -- these tweets today certainly fit right into that. every fifth grader could tell you that climate change refers to unpredictable weather patterns. we're coming out of a year when houston and puerto rico were under water, california was on fire. you've got to assume that he is essentially just kind of poking a stick at his critics. >> also in terms of the president's sort of media strategy, if you want to call it that, we're talking about this interview. it seems to be a spur of the moment interview with "the new york times." no traditional end of the year press conference with reporters all assembled.

are we looking at a presidency where that's in the past, that's not part of the presidency going forward? is this more the norm? >> yeah. one thing that's interesting about this presidency, with other presidents, historians have had to wait decades for records to be released, you know, to find out a president's inner thoughts. this is a president who kind of lets us know what's going on in the kcortex of his brain constantly at any given moment. i think this "new york times" interview today was, in that regard, very revealing. it was almost a roller coaster ride of his observations and thoughts. it does give you a real sense, in real time, of what the president is thinking. >> well, we are into the final minutes of this show, the final hours, really, of 2017. let me ask you both, as folks who have been covering this, following the year in politics, tim, i'll start with you. thinking back over 2017, what are the stories that stand out to you as your favorites from the year? >> boy, oh, boy.

well, i'd be -- i'd be lying if i diplomat say the politico magazine has had some of the most exceptional jourmism on the internet this year. we've had a bunch of great pieces. look, personally speaking, the time that i was able to spend with the former speaker, john boehner this year. spent about 18 hours on the record with him over the course of the summer. capturing it not just him in retirement but looking through his very unique lens at the republican civil war and what has happened to the institution of congress and to the party itself. really, most broadly to the country. that was a lot of fun for me. again, we've had some great pieces at politico, one by michael cruz examining how trump consistently convinces the base in the party, you know, really this will trump coalition that came together in 2017, convinces them that he is winning even when he is not winning. which is really sort of an incredible political,

psychological phenomenon that i think historians and political scientists will be trying to unpack for many years to come. trying to figure out how people who voted for trump -- we saw a public opinion poll this week how trump after the last week or so repeating that obamacare is being repealed, the number was 43% of republican voters in a recent poll believed that. that was another excellent piece from a colleague of mine, examining how the president is able to convince people who voted for him that he has accomplished things even when he has not been able to. >> karen, over to you. feel free not to just go with politico stories but what other stories for you in 2017. >> in a year where every day seems to bring a month's worth of news, thinking back over the ones i think will have the longest and broadest implications, i think it may be the fallout from the #metoo movement and the degree to which i think women have been

energized in a lot of arenas. not the least of which is politics. starting with the women's march and carrying right through the end of the year. >> all right, karen from "the washington post," tim alberta from politico. wrapping up this look back at 2017 as we come to the final hours here. thanks to both of you for joining us. more ahead. this is "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. so that's the idea. what do you think? hate to play devil's advocate but... i kind of feel like it's a game changer. i wouldn't go that far. are you there? he's probably on mute. yeah... gary won't like it. why?

because he's gary. (phone ringing) what? keep going! yeah... (laughs) (voice on phone) it's not millennial enough. there are a lot of ways to say no. thank you so much. thank you! so we're doing it. yes! "we got a yes!" start saying yes to your company's best ideas. let us help with money and know-how, so you can get business done. american express open. i enjoy the fresher things in life.o. fresh towels. fresh soaps. and of course, tripadvisor's freshest, lowest... ...prices. so if you're anything like me... ...you'll want to check tripadvisor. we now instantly compare prices... ...from over 200 booking sites... ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. go on, try something fresh.

tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices. you myour joints...thing for your heart... or your digestion... so why wouldn't you take something for the most important part of you... your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is now the number one selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember.

that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell

reports." craig melvin is up next on msnbc. >> steve, i will see you next year, my friend. >> take care. >> craig melvin from msnbc headquarters in new york. off the cuff, donald trump fresh off the golf course sat down with the "new york times." why he says the russia investigation makes america look bad. and the new jab he just took at his own attorney general jeff sessions while praising former a.g. eric holder. and a #metoo moment. what defined our year. the question now, can momentum turn into lasting change? plus, good-bye, 2017. a year where our politics were divided, our rhetoric was heat and bipartisanship was hard to come by. now, former president obama is sharing a final thought as we head into 2018. institute but we end the week and the year with president trump, unplugged in a brand-new "new york times" interview.