the book also sparking debates about whether president trump is mentally fit for office. we're going to hear from a former trump adviser who's quoted in the book calling the president an expletive fool. and a fast and furious defense. the president and his allies lashing out at the author, calling the book a fake and a pile of trash. lots to cover here. let's get started. >> i would have been delighted to have written a contrarian account here -- donald trump, this unexpected president, is actually going to succeed. okay. that's not the story. he is not going to succeed. >> the book is best understood as a work of very poorly written fiction. and i also will say that the author is a garbage author of a garbage book. >> we have all these, you know, wise ac wiseacres out there wanting to criticize and be presumptuous about judging everyone's intelligence. i can tell you he's got the wherewithal to do things no politician has been able to do,

and in a good way. >> this is a man who is leading the united states of america and who engages with the intelligence community in ways that are sophisticated. he deals with the most complex issues. >> i don't think he's crazy. i think he's had a very successful 2017. >> all right, let's talk about it. welcome, everybody. the white house is pushing back hard against michael wolff, his book, "fire and fury," now raising questions about the president's mental fitness. the author today standing by his reporting on nbc's "meet the press." take a look. >> did you leave out good stuff? because it got in the way of the narrative? like if people said positive things about him, not saying that you left it out because you thought it took away from the thesis of the book that you wanted to get out there? >> if i left out anything, it's probably stuff that was even more damning. >> and earlier today, former white house strategist steve bannon apologized for his damning statements in the book about don trump jr. bannon is quoting as saying don junior's meeting with a russian

lawyer was treasonous and unpatriotic. bannon is now appearing to take back those comments, saying they were aimed at former campaign adviser paul manafort. here was part of his statement to axios -- "donald trump jr. is both a patriot and a good man. he has been relentless in his advocacy for his father and the agenda that has helped turn our country around. i regret that my delay in responding to the inaccurate reporting regarding don junior has diverted attention from the president's historical accomplishments in the first year of his presidency." that's just a part of his entire statement, which i believe was seven parts in total. let's bring in our panel, josh barro, msnbc contributor and senior editor with "the business insider," jeff mason, white house correspondent for reuters, and sarah westwood, white house correspondent for "the washington examiner." i want to go around the table before we get started and get everyone's reaction one by one. josh, since you're sitting here, i'll start with you. on steve bannon's apology today, if, in fact, that's what we can

call it, and why now? >> i think it's interesting what's not in steve bannon's apology. this is basically an apology to donald trump and donald trump jr. and trying so to say when he talked about the meeting being treasonous it was referring to paul manafort, but he also talked about a money laundering issue to jared kushner and that that is the path robert mueller will follow to take down donald trump. and there's no apology in here to kushner, no retraction of those claims. and -- >> it was really just shifting the blame to paul manafort and taking it off of don june fior saying it was treasonous, the meeting in trump tower. >> and if he says he said mean things about donald trump jr., this is to walk that back, but i think the serious issue with the president is basically about there being this criminal activity that is going to bring him down. that seems like something that probably is upsetting the president a great deal, especially since it's an accusation about his son-in-law. but kushner and bannon, who were

at each other's throats much of the time that both of them were in the white house, he seems to be trying to declare a truce with don junior without declaring a truce with don junior's brother-in-law. >> kushner. and his wife. >> and his wife. >> who happens to be the president's daughter. >> who is quoted in the book calling "dumb as a brick." so i feel like if bannon is going to get back in trump's good graces, he probably has to apologize to all of trump's immediate relatives, not just to his son. >> jeff, was bannon speaking to an audience of one here? >> well, no, i don't think he was speaking to an audience of one here. i think he was speaking to his own backers. i think he was speaking to people who he wants to get money from, if he's to continue to be a would-be power player in the conservative base. >> do you think this had anything to do with the president, the apology? >> certainly, and i would dispute that it's an apology. he doesn't use the word apology in his statement. he doesn't say i'm sorry. he says he regrets that he waited so long -- >> that would be very unbannonlike to issue an apology. >> and he says i regret that

waiting so long led to false reporting about what he mens about don junior. clearly, he wants to make up with don junior. clearly, the fact that he was so critical of him was one of the breaking points for president trump. but the rest, as was just said eloquently, the rest of the statements that he had in that book, he did not come out and say were wrong or misquoted or that he regretted them. >> sarah, do you think this is about money at the end of the day for bannon and his backing, and will he get it back with his statement? >> it's hard to see it coming back in the immediate future just because the fallout has been so severe for him, his biggest financial backers, the mercers, have publicly distanced themselves and revealed that they haven't been speaking to bannon for months. and like you mentioned, this is something that's so unbannonlike. his instinct is to double down on whatever controversy he's found himself in. the advice he gave president trump after the "access hollywood" tape was not to apologize, double down. after the charlottesville fallout when president trump was widely criticized for his response, bannon's advice was not to back down, not to apologize. so to see him come out and offer not quite an apology, but a

statement that could be read as pretty contrite, that's pretty remarkable to steve bannon to choose that he understands the depths of what he finds himself in. >> and we remember the statement from the president after everything came out with "fire and fury" and how startling that was to us and sort of how he undressed bannon, shall we say, and say he was basically fired. meanwhile, that word had never been used when bannon left the white house, that bannon was fired, but then the president coming out and saying he was in fact fired, i don't talk to the man and sort of going on and on about him. bannon in the statement he issued today continuing to support the president, saying in part, "my support is also unwavering for the president and his agenda. and i have shown daily in my national radio broadcasts, in the pages of breitbart news and speeches and appearances from tokyo to hong kong to arizona and alabama." josh, does the president take him back in and not literally take him back into the white house, but does he forgive him? >> you never know with donald

trump. he has a decades-long history of fighting with people and making up. omarosa was fired from "the apprentice" on three occasions and then ended up working in the white house, then she was escorted off the white house grounds. >> exactly. >> so i'll never say the president is never going to make up with someone, but the question is what does steve bannon have to offer the president at this point? what's been demonstrated here is steve bannon has no constituency of his own. he doesn't really have fans. whoever was a fan of steve bannon was more of a fan of donald trump. so the president has been putting people through this weird ritual, basically sending them out to denounce steve bannon, having people choose between the president and bannon, and who's going to choose bannon over the president? so bannon is in a very weak position here, i assume would like to find a way out of this, is probably too proud to issue the truly abject apology that would help him get there. but if he were to ever get back in the president's good graces, the president would have to find him useful, and the president has a tendency to get dissatisfied with whoever is offering him advice. so if he hits a difficult patch in the future in the

administration, he gets on the phone and has conversations with friends and associates and advisers, that could be a time when he's tempted to reach back out to steve bannon and have a reconciliation with him. but i couldn't venture when or whether that will ever happen. >> jeff, how do you expect the white house to respond to all of this? >> i think the white house has spent a lot of time this past week pushing back against the book, trying to discredit the author, certainly being very critical of steve bannon. and they were out on the airwaves again today doing that. i sent an e-mail to some white house folks earlier when i got a copy of the statement to see if they had a response and haven't heard back. but undoubtedly, they will be asked again throughout today and tomorrow, and i think that the president will see it as a sign that bannon is sort of moving back towards being more praiseworthy of him. he was quick to note when bannon said something nice about him on his radio show, so i'm sure he will have seen this statement, and i suspect the white house will acknowledge that in some way. but that said, i think that the damage that steve did to that relationship is pretty deep, and

it will be hard with this statement alone to move back into his good graces. >> all right, josh barro, jeff mason, sarah westwood, thank you for joining me. appreciate it. coverage from the fallout of michael wolff's book continuing. i'll ask a former trump campaign adviser who was quoted at least ten times in the book what's true and what is false. and we're counting down to the golden globes, everybody, tonight on nbc. how the #metoo movement plans to take over the red carpet. that's coming up. it nk. and tiny. and this is laura's mobile dog grooming palace. laura can clean up a retriever that rolled in foxtails, but she's not much on "articles of organization." articles of what? so, she turned to legalzoom. they helped me out. she means we helped with her llc, trademark, and a lot of other legal stuff that's a part of running a business. so laura can get back to the dogs. would you sit still? this is laura's mobile dog grooming palace and this is where life meets legal. hey, need fast try cool mint zantac.

it releases a cooling sensation in your mouth and throat. zantac works in as little as 30 minutes. nexium can take 24 hours. try cool mint zantac. no pill relieves heartburn faster.

we know that when you're spending time with the grandkids every minute counts. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why we show you exactly when we'll be there. saving you time, so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪

. welcome back, everybody. as the fbi's russia investigation is continuing into 2018, so does speculation over whether president trump himself could be charged. this morning on abc's "this week," former attorney for new york, attorney preet bharara considered the case not for collusion, but obstruction of justice. take a listen. >> presumably, the president wanted to be protected by a loyal attorney general, not to protect the process of law, but to protect him from the due process of law, and that's not right. and over time, if you have enough instances of things that show that the president wanted to end the russia investigation, and this is just a piece of it, you start to find yourself building -- >> so it has to be a pattern -- >> and republican senator from south carolina lindsey graham spoke with chuck todd on "meet the press" earlier today, saying he believes russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election but also saying he wants to see

a second special counsel appointed to look at possible partisan bias in the justice department. we're going to watch some of that interview in just a couple of seconds. joining me now, danielle hoffman, former moscow bureau chief for the fbi, and danny cevallos, msnbc legal analyst. welcome to you both. i'm just going to call you by your last names so there's no mix-up, cevallos and hoffman. so cevallos, does that take you back to high school? >> high school football coach. that's what it's reminding me of. >> going back to preet bharara's comments, is there evidence of obstruction of justice on president trump's part in terms of russia? >> it's theoretical, the idea being that if you try to interfere with the administration directly through your own appointed attorney general, then yes, potentially, the president could be obstructing justice. the president can an instruct justice, and it's absolutely relevant to whether or not he is impeachment, even if he is not prosecutable while he's in office. whether or not he fits the elements of obstruction, and

there are about six primary obstruction statutes under federal law, but for the most part, any obstruction of the administration of law or impeding an investigation will count. >> if you're a president talking to people in your cabinet, wondering why it is that the head of the doj, why the attorney general's recusing himself from the russia investigation, because he believes he should not be a part of that, that in and of itself could be seen as obstruction of justice, no? >> it also seems to be circ circumventing. >> and how do you prove that? >> yes. first of all, it seems to circumstancent vent federal law, which prescribes a very specific way or reason for recusal, and it's primarily concerned with the appearance of impropriety. and jeff sessions having a political relationship with the president probably had to under doj regulationas and federal la recuse himself, and i don't think it's something the president could overcome by simply asking him to stay on. regulations in the law say what they say about recusal. and if there's an appearance of

impropriety, the a.g., like any u.s. attorney, should recuse him or herself. >> hoffman, i want to listen to senator lindsey graham, who spoke to chuck todd this morning on "meet the press." >> yeah, but he believes that collusion is a hoax. all i can say is it is not a hoax. the russians stole the e-mails. they did interfere in our elections. we now know that trump junior met with the russians in trump tower and that bob mueller is doing a great job. he's the right guy at the right time. he needs to be allowed to do his job. and whether or not there is collusion, bob mueller will tell us. i've seen no evidence of collusion. mr. mueller had to be appointed as special counsel, but we need a second special counsel to look at the way the department of justice conducted themselves. >> so, this is interesting, hoffman, and i'm going to start with you first. graham simultaneously saying that the president is wrong on russian interference while also calling for a second special counsel to investigate the doj/fbi over accusations of

partisan intent. what do you think about that? >> well, first thing i think about, just the view from the kremlin. i mean, it's as if vladimir putin injected a virus into our political system and he's just reaping the rewards every day. it's causing, you know, some measure of almost paralysis and an intense, well-deserved, media feeding frenzy, and it just serves the kremlin's interests. as far as whether it's deserved or not, i think there are a lot of questions about the dossier in terms of the sources mr. steele used, the tradecraft. i can tell you, i served in moscow for five years, mr. steele didn't even visit moscow. and so, there's a question about whether the fsb would have been aware that he was collecting that information, and then what they regularly do if they're trying to conduct covert influence operations is to feed information so that maybe 90%-95% of the information is true, and 5% of it is not, and it's designed to serve their covert influence. >> so, you're bringing up the dossier, hoffman, and you have two republican members of the

senate judiciary committee, both senator lindsey graham along with charles grassley of iowa, following this referral, asking the justice department to charge former british intelligence officer christopher steele, claiming he may have misled the fbi. so, a couple questions here. do you believe this dossier is accurate or do you think that there are questions, as you just mentioned, into what the dossier has? >> yeah, i mean, i think there's a lot of questions about the accuracy -- >> and also the collection of intelligence that the dossier has. >> right. i think there's a lot of questions about the accuracy of the dossier. i think that it would have been -- the administration would have been well served if they had asked the intelligence community to assess the veracity of the dossier, to take a hard look at the sources and the way the intelligence was collected. but i will say, from the perspective of a retired intelligence officer, it is unseemly for a retired intelligence officer to conduct an intelligence-gathering operation on behalf of one candidate against another. i couldn't imagine myself doing that for the conservative party against the labor party.

and i'm not sure whether that warrants a special prosecutor, special counsel, but there is an unseemly nature of that, which i think probably some in the administration and maybe others in the intelligence community might find repugnant. >> so, what do you think about graham and grassley sort of asking the justice department to charge christopher steele? >> it's just a referral. it's just like -- >> so what does that mean? >> it's basically a referral from an outside agency or branch asking for a criminal investigation. it's a request. it's like any citizen filing a private criminal complaint. >> does it have legs? >> no. ultimately, the discretion whether or not to charge is ultimately that of the attorney general. and i think the attorney general possibly to the exclusion of the president, at least there are differing schools of thought on this issue, but the attorney general was not named the secretary of the department of justice. they are the attorneys general. and the implication there is

that there is a certain degree of independence, possibly different from other cabinet members, that the attorney general has a primary obligation as an attorney, to justice, to the law, and maybe secondarily to the person who appointed him or her. >> and what -- i saw you reacting off camera as daniel hoffman was talking about sort of the second special counsel that lindsey graham was asking for. i feel like you don't necessarily agree with it. >> who would investigate the second special counsel, yasmin? the third special counsel? who watches the watchman? i mean, at some point, there has to be an end. i can envision a possibility that each successive appointee, special counsel, might need to be investigated, but there has to be an end to this. i mean, that's the way our government was designed. that's the essence behind checks and balances, that there is finality. it's why we have a supreme court and not an after the supreme court court, after the supreme court supreme court. there is an end. so i understand maybe people would like oversight --

>> but the oversight is mueller. >> the oversight is mueller. but the question is, who watches mueller? and then who watches who watches mueller? it could go on forever. >> let's talk, cevallos, about paul manafort's lawsuit against the justice department, alleging his charges have little to do with russia, that mueller was going outside of what he should have been investigating and that what he's being charged with was not inside the scope of mueller's investigation and what he was hired for. is there merit to what manafort is bringing up? >> i reviewed this complaint. and if you get past -- if he can stay in court, if he has standing to bring this case under the administrative procedure act, it is a creative and well-drafted argument. i think this is not to be dismissed out of hand. it could be dismissed procedurally, but as to the substance, the argument is essentially that mueller's power existed by virtue of that power that was given to him in so many words in the letter of appointment and that catch-all phrase of, and he can investigate just about anything else that he may see may not be

within the bounds of the special counsel as it is envisioned. so, if he exceeded his authority, if it is, as we say in latin, ultra vires, if that investigation, paul manafort's alleged crimes which fell what, almost a decade ago, and had very little to do with the actual russia collusion, if that fell outside of mueller's authority, then possibly it was beyond his power to investigate. but then there's the question of whether this case is -- >> but what happens if you're investigating one crime and you happen to find something else going on, doesn't mean that you can't necessarily prosecute on that other crime, can't charge for another crime. >> that's right. and that's why anybody who practices in the criminal world, whether a prosecutor or criminal defense attorney, knows that that is a basic principle of american law, that police are lawfully standing on point "a" and see crime on point "b," they can go to point "b," and if they see crime from point "b," they can go to "c" and "d" and

hopscotch however they like. that's the way criminal law normally operates in america. the special counsel law is a little different. the special counsel's authority is defined by the document that appoints him and federal law, and if he goes outside that authority, then he may be outside of his power. but you're absolutely right, that notion runs contra to the way american law and american criminal investigations typically work. criminal defense attorneys like me know that if someone, if a police officer or a prosecutor's lawfully at a point and they get a sniff, literally a whiff of burnt marijuana or some other, you know, some evidence of some crime, they will move on to the next step, and they usually can move on to the next step legally. >> all right, daniel hoffman, danny cevallos, thank you both for joining me. appreciate it. happy new year to you both, by the way. thank you guys. stable genius or mentally ill? the president and his allies defend his sanity following controversial comments about his mental health. we're going to discuss that next.

i tried hard to quit smoking. but when we brought our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how.

you or joints. something for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember.

i went to the best colleges, or college. i went to -- i had a situation where i was a very excellent student, came out, made billions and billions of dollars, became one of the top businesspeople. went to television, and for ten

years was a tremendous success. ran for president one time and won. >> all right, so, that was president trump at camp david yesterday shooting down concerns that he is not mentally stable. these concerns growing this week with the publication of this scathing tell-all book, "fire and fury: inside the trump white house" by michael wolff. but today, plenty of trump allies jumped to the president's defense. listen to mike pompeo on sunday. >> we talk about some of the most serious matters facing america and the world, complex issues. the president is engaged. he understands the complexity. >> and overseas, the book has raised questions about the president's mental state as well. british prime minister theresa may was asked about her interactions with president trump. >> when i deal with president trump, what i see is somebody who is committed to ensuring that he is taking decisions in the best interests of the united states. >> all right, joining me now, gina louden, conservative

commentator and media advisory board member of trump for president and former governor ed rendell, cnbc contributor. gina, i'll start with you. the president obviously taking on this issue very publicly, both making a statement yesterday, and of course, tweeting out what he did on saturday as well. by doing this, is the president not ensuring that the discussion about his mental state and his capacity continues? >> well, the problem often, i think probably, for most trump supporters, they feel like they're not adequately represented by the media when we know that more than 90% of the coverage of this administration so far, which has been tremendously productive by any standard from an economic or a national security standpoint, and yet, 90% of the media coverage has been negative. so i think that, you know, people who are out there who voted for this president, who want to get on with the business of making america better,

they're frustrated and they want him to counterpunch on issues like this so that the message gets out there. >> but i'm also asking about the president's reaction himself, the way that he addressed his mental capabilities and the tweet that he sent out yesterday as well. does that not only continue the conversation by saying, i actually am a genius? >> well, i think it says that he's not afraid of having the conversation, right? he's obviously a very well-credentialed person, went to the best of the best schools. he's established himself as an incredible businessman, went on to be a hollywood star because he decided to do that for a moment and then became president of the united states against all odds in the entire establishment. that's brag-worthy in the book of just about anyone. so i don't think most people have a problem with him say it. i think what people have a problem with is the media's continued focus on this rather than moving america forward. >> do you think the ability to become a hollywood star is same as the ability to become president of the united states? do you think those should be one and the same? >> no, i don't think they're the

same and i don't think anyone equated them. i'm saying it's about setting a goal and doing your best and becoming the best at what you do, and he's done that in multiple realms, which most people at the end of their lives can't look back and say they went to the top of their field in more than one field, and he's done it in several, and i think it's worth noting. >> governor, the president in one of his tweets said that the media is "taking out the old ronald reagan playbook and screaming mental stability and intelligence." does the media, governor, have a right to question the president's mental stability? >> well, sure. for this president and any president. but the fallacy of the argument that was just made is that it wasn't the media that raised the president's mental stability for the first time. it was a republican senator from tennessee who was considered by the trump campaign as a possible vice presidential candidate, senator corker. he publicly said something which was shocking to many coming from a republican. he had serious doubts about the

president's mental stability. and then, of course, rex tillerson was quoted, and he never directly denied it, that the president was a moron. now, i know donald trump, and he's not a moron. he has more than significant intelligence. his biggest problem is he doesn't seem to listen, he doesn't seem to be engaged, he doesn't seem to care about things, and he seems to respond -- i mean, if your stability were in question, you'd shake it off. you don't say, i'm a genius, i'm stable, stability is one of my main assets. look, donald trump has a lot of assets. he can sell anything, but stability would not be at the top of the wrung. >> gina, does the governor have a point there, that if your stability is questioned, you should sort of be able to shake it off, move on, do your job? >> i mean, if his narrative were ever honestly discussed in the media, but we know that it isn't, when 90% of the media has focused on negative things about

a tremendously, a wildly, historically successful presidency, despite things like the governor just mentioned, that you know, the swamp has been a constant problem, that the media has been a constant voice against him, and yet, he's still been so incredibly productive. and i don't understand, for the people who want to just constantly focus on the negative and focus on tearing down, i would be the one questioning their sanity. it's not a good thing to just be constantly tearing down a negative. and i think when you look at things like african-american unemployment at an all-time low, that's what this president's mission has been, to make -- >> but is it the negative or is it the way the president chooses to run the white house? the media's only responding to the way in which the president chooses to run this white house. it's not focusing on the negative. >> well, it is absolutely focusing on the negative. it is spun at every turn. nothing the president does is ever heralded by the media. i haven't heard any reports

about the fact that he's made january human trafficking month and he's dedicating a whole task force to that. i haven't heard anything about black unemployment being at a historic low and black housing being at a high -- >> i don't remember the president talking about that either. >> gina, gina, gina -- >> go ahead. >> i heard that statistic. i heard that statistic about black unemployment being at a historic low, four times yesterday on the media. and remember -- >> well, that's good! i'm glad you're hearing it. >> it's a question of his stability -- [ everyone talking at once ] >> let the governor speak. >> sure. >> listen, on the issue of stability, which is what we're discussing, it's not the media that brought up the issue of his stability. it was fellow republicans. it was friends of his. it was personal friends who questioned whether he was melancholy, questioned whether he was engaged. it was bob corker saying he questioned his stability. it was rex tillerson saying he was a moron. it was general mcmaster saying he doesn't listen. >> first of all -- >> that they have to defend by putting his name in stuff.

it's not the media. >> do you just not believe it, gi gina? is that what it is? the people that surround the president? >> i pay a lot more attention to actions than i do words, and i learned that a long time ago in politics. what matters to me is how productive this president has been. that is a sure sign of mental strength, of mental integrity, and of his commitment to this country. that's what matters to me. that's why i sleep well at night. and i am not really concerned about what a bunch of people who he considers and most trump voters consider the swamp and however it is they want to rumor this and say people have said things when, in fact, most of those people deny it pretty strongly. and those who don't probably have more important things to do. >> go ahead, governor. >> gina, we're letting you off the hook on most productive president ever, because that's not the topic. i think his presidency has been disastrous. it's accomplished nothing. it's tearing away at our environment. it's doing so many different things to split the country apart. but leave that aside for now. on the question of stability,

it's his tweets that say i've got a bigger button than kim jong-un does, and my button works. my button works, implying that he'd be just as happy to press that button. of course, by the way, it isn't a button. the only button he has on his desk is a button that will get him diet cokes from a valet. he doesn't have a button. >> so, gina, the governor's bringing up his tweets. talk about those tweets. do you think that tweets help or hurt your argument with regards to the president's mental stability, when he's tweeting out things about various people in the media, when he's calling people names, when he's saying i have a bigger button than yours with regards to kim jong-un? >> the president's a counterpuncher. we know that. with regards to kim jong-un, what he did brought kim jong-un to the table for the first time in decades. and rather than celebrating that and talking about how we can all move forward as a nation, putting america first, making sure that the nuclear threat of

north korea is off the table, instead of that, we're criticizing his methodology. i don't know about you, but i like what works, and that's what i believe this administration has done from day one -- >> whoa, whoa, whoa -- >> -- and has been tremendously successful. >> governor, final word. >> gina, i have to question your mental stability if you think that anything donald trump has done has reduced the nuclear threat by north korea. i'm sorry. maybe you need -- >> they're negotiating now. i think that's a big-time -- >> they're not negotiating. they're talking to the south koreans. >> where is isis, by the way, governor? >> we'll end it there, gina, but i think there will be a lot of experts that will say we're credential not out of the woods with regards to our nuclear threat right now. gina loudon and governor ed rendell, thank you both. >> thanks. protesters shout "death to america" for its response to antigovernment rallies in iran. did the u.s. overstep its bounds? an iranian-american actress talks about that. and tonight, ayman mohyeldin will be here at 5:00 p.m., followed by "meet the press" with chuck todd and kasie d.c.

hey, you every talk to anybody about your money? yeah, i got some financial guidance a while ago. how'd that go? he kept spelling my name with an 'i' but it's bryan with a 'y.' yeah, since birth. that drives me crazy. yes. it's on all your email. yes. they should know this? yeah. the guy was my brother-in-law. that's ridiculous. well, i happen to know some people. do they listen? what? they're amazing listeners. nice. guidance from professionals who take their time to get to know you.

let's go beyond the beltway. as temperatures plunged across the northeast this week, pictures and videos emerged of students in baltimore public schools bundled up in coats, scarves and hoods attempting to learn in below-freezing temperatures, these conditions prompted college student suneera jones to launch a gofundme page after seeing the toll it took on

her little sister. take a look. >> she got sick because she was so cold and she complains about having to wear her coats and jackets. and i'm like, everybody's talking about this, but nobody's doing anything. >> so, the gofundme page was raising money for space heaters and outerwear for these kids. the goal was initially set at $20,000, but it has far exceeded that, raising more than $73,000 as of this afternoon. also now for heart-warming news out of dallas. last month, billy earl dade middle school hosted its first breakfast with dads event. organizers feared there wouldn't be enough male figures to pair up with their students and put out the call for volunteers who could mentor the boys. when the day came, nearly 600 men answered the call and showed up to be a mentor. and take a look at this. tennessee titans quarterback marcus mariota making postseason history yesterday, passing and receiving his own touchdown after it t was nearly interce intercepted by a chiefs cornerback. the titans beat the chiefs 22-21. a really great game there. oooh, hey baby! hey momma. you're home!

you need to eat. how was the trip? it was too long. i'll be right back. nobody knows what he wants better than you. and nobody knows pot pie better than banquet. whoo! with tender cuts of meat, sweet veggies, and rich, savory gravy, banquet makes everyone at the table feel like family. good to have you. banquet pot pies. made for the moments that matter most.

the iranian regime is now on notice. the world will be watching what you do. >> all right, ambassador nikki haley blasting the iranian regime for ignoring its own people. u.s. demanding at friday's security council meeting on the

recent deadly protests in iran. some nations echoed haley's calls for free speech, but france, russia and iran criticized washington for meddling in tehran's internal affairs. they have been gripped by protest for more than a week, fueled by anger over corruption and economic mismanagement by the country's leaders. but yesterday it was pro-government supporters who took to the streets chanting "death to america." i want to bring in the president of the national iranian american council. thank you for joining me this sunday afternoon. >> thank you for having me. >> good to talk to you. so, one of the things about this protest that is so different, i believe, from the movement in 2009 is this is a protest that was fueled by the working class. talk to me about that difference, the working class versus the middle class, because when i would speak to people in iran that were of the middle class, it's as if they didn't even really know what was going on or what to make of the protests in iran. >> i think you put your finger on something really important, because part of the reason why many of us, myself included,

missed that this was coming, was because we had focused so much on the middle class because they had tended to be at the center of iran's political developments for the last 20 years. but this came from the working class, people who have been tremendously suffering under economic mismanagement of the government, who saw in this new budget that was presented that so much of the benefits that they had been enjoying would be taken away from them while at the same time increasing fuel prices 50% and forcing some people to be able to go to islamic charities to get help rather than getting it directly from the government. all of these things together with years of mismanagement, suppression, et cetera, just simply boiled over, but it didn't boil over in the middle class, it boiled over in the working class. and that's why so many of us took a while before we fully understood what was going on. >> but these working class iranians, these are not people that necessarily go to the streets or necessarily protest, because for them, it seems what is most important, trita, and i

want you to expand on this, is putting food on the table and making sure that they're able to keep the lights on in their homes, because they're not making much money, to say the least. >> certainly. once you have the luxury of being able to live a more decent life, that's when usually people end up thinking more about political issues, and that's why you're quite correct, we haven't seen these type of political movements from the working class to the same extent. however, their protests against economic injustice in iran actually has been going on, it's just never reached this level and it's never really become this politically potent as this protest for the last ten days have become. >> there is so much propaganda surrounding these protests, and we're not necessarily able to make what is true, what is false. there's a london-basised "arab daily" that reports ex-president mahmoud ahmadinejad had been arrested for allegedly inciting anti-government protests. have you heard of this? have you seen what's going on there? >> i've seen the report.

i have not been able to confirm it. here's one of the things that's happening here is there is a lot of misinformation out there as well, which has also led to some people taking a step back and actually not joining the protests because they're not so sure where all of this is comin disadvantageous to the protesters who have legitimate grievances and need to make sure the government starts listening to them on these issues of economic and political injustice. >> what's the end game here? >> that's part of the problem. when i talk to people who are quite involved in the green movement, they are very hesitant about this because they don't see an end game. a lot of people are raising the issue that without a leadership, how do you make sure the protests turn into political change rather than turning iran into syria. this is causing a lot of question marks, et cetera. ultimately, it may cause protests not to be able to reach their full potential. >> thank you so much. good seeing you. from the 19 revolution to the green movement, how much does the current unrest draw

from the past. i'm joined by an oscar-normal named actress and author of "the alley of love" about her childhood in the iran. thank you for joining me. very much appreciated. as someone who grew up in iran and has a personnel connection to that country. what was your reaction when you saw the most recent protests there? >> well, it was heart warming and it was disturb iing at the same time. we were all surprised. we were caught off. we didn't expect the lower class, the blue collar to pour on to the streets. one of the most religious cities in iran. and the fact is that the interesting point here is the fact that all these young men mostly between 18 to 30, 40 to 50% unemployed, walking in the

streets of tehran are the sons and grandsons of the people who brought the aye toe la to power. >> how do you compare to what you're seeing now? for so many people that's all they know of iranian histor historyayatoll historyayatollah>> things have changed a lot ayatollah my generation was asking for freedom and democracy ayatollah 25 years later who were joined by journalists they were asking for have wr is my vote ayatolla

were asking for have wr is my vote ayatollah it reminded me of my generation was asking for freedom and democracy. but the most recent last week were totally different. it came out of a stagnant economy and iranians have been suffering for at least 40 years now with all the problems, economic and social. and again, the shear fact was in the slogans shout iing, the natn is begging and the aye toe la is living a lavish life like a god. >> you say that it you left iran with a mission. your current show on the psi fie network this allows you to continue that mission as to why

you left iran. talk to me about that. >> i had a choice of either getting myself involve d with politics and join the political arena in movies and tv series, or just stay with the entertaining part and get away from politics. when i was back in iran, the best thing you could hear was that if you want to have a life in iran, do not get yourself involved with politics. but i decided that since i was the black sheep of the family turning myself into an actor, i decided to go against the current and decided to stay with the meaningful parts that would give myself -- that i would enjoy them and my audience would enjoy too. the audience will take something home with them. >> i'm sure you're no longer the

black sheep of your family considering the amount of success that you have had achieved. but i will say having iranian dissent, making a choice to go into entertainment or journalism, you are seen as a black sheep. thank you so much. we'll be right back.

trust #1 doctor recommended dulcolax. use dulcolax tablets for gentle dependable relief. suppositories for relief in minutes. and dulcoease for comfortable relief of hard stools. dulcolax. designed for dependable relief.

welcome back, everybody. the golden globes tonight will not be about the film and television stars and the clothes they have chosen to wear.

it's going to be about something much bigger. it will be about the men and women who faced sexual harassment and intimidation and the men and is women speaking out against it. me too will be front and center and #times up. you may see the pin like this one. a sim boll of support for a recent initiative start abomination of desolation by 300 women in television. the project hopes to combat sexual misconduct by creating a legal defense fund to help vi victims. "the new york times" will be getting in on the act and airing an ad addressing sexual harassment at the golden globes. "new york times" is one of the publications that broke the harvey weinstein scandal wide open. everybody is weighing in including host seth meyers. make it about the people who are finally stand iing up for themselves and show them the support they deserve by tweeting out #timesup.

the news continues now. >> that's a powerful statement that's going to be made tonight at the golden globes. a lot of people will be watching that. thank you for bringing it up in your daily share. we have a lot to break down this hour. starting off with banning back. ing down. the former advise issuing an apology about donald trump jr. is it enough to stop his fall from grace. that book fueling debate on the air waes about the president's mental fitness with the president himself having a lot to say on the subject. plus republicans pushing the fbi to look into criminal charges against the man behind the das ya in the russian investigation. is this just an attempt to muddy the waters for robert mueller. we'll look at that as well. we begin with the bomb shell apology from steve bannon, who has been under fire from the president as sloppy steve and facing backlash from his usual defenders after calling the infamous donald trump jr.