estate star won this round. >> it needs to scare people. >> but the war is not over yet. we have to keep faith. >> not get angry. >> that is the last word. i'm nicolle wallace, "mtp daily" starts right now. >> i didn't find my shadow. did you find yours. >> what does that mean? cold or not? winter is over or still going. >> i think it means we're -- we're six month mores of what we're doing right now. >> oh, god, that is like three more seasons. have a good day. >> if it is friday, the memo saw its shadow. six more months of the mueller probe. tonight the republican memo is out. >> i think it is a disgrace. what is going on in this country, i this it is a disgrace. >> will the president use it as a excuse to fire rod rosenstein. >> do you have confidence in rod rosenstein. >> you figure that one out. >> and shadow games. why i'm obsessed with groundhog

days. this is "mtp daily" and it starts right now. good evening. i'm chuck todd in washington. welcome to "mtp daily." it is groundhog day again. and the president is calling his justice department a disgrace. some would argue claiming it is a partisan investigation. and the apparent evidence behind all of that, this memo. which has, quote, material omissions, according to the president's own fib. compiled by a former member of transition member devin nunes written by staff members an there is money are -- money reasons to be skeptical but the main contention is the trump

appointee used information from fusion gps steel steele dossier in an application to spy on campaign adviser carter page after he left the trump campaign and they failed to tell the fisa court which proved the warrant that the clinton campaign and the dnc was funding steele's work. if that is all accurate, does it raise some questions? yes. should a judge be told about that stuff? perhaps, yes. and it may be the judge was told more than you think. because a democratic congressional source tells nbc news the fisa judges were made aware that there was a, quote, pli -- political context to the information. meaning it came from a political opponent of trump. and so does it prove what the president is saying it proves? >> i think it is terrible. you want to know the truth. i think it is a disgrace. what is going on in this country, i think it is a disgrace. the memo was sent to congress,

declassified and congress will do whatever they're going to do. but i think it is a disgrace what is happening in our country. and when you look at that, and you see that and so many other things, what is going on, a lot of people should be ashamed of themselves and much worse than that. >> president trump also would not rule out firing his deputy attorney general over the memo. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> you figured that one out. >> and this morning hours before the memo's release he tweeted this, quote, the top leadership and investigators of the fbi and justice department have politicized the sacred investigate process in favor of democrats and against republicans, something which would have been unthinkable just a short time ago. rank and file are great people. exclamation point. and let me bring in ken delaney an. let me start with the memo itself. and i think what the central

question and critique of the memo is -- should the fbi have included more information about steele and his potential motives to the fisa judge? was that an error and is that in fact what happened? >> the problem is it is pretty clear we can't rely on the memo to tell us what they did and didn't include. because as you mentioned, a democratic source told me that in fact the fisa judges were-day-owere there was a political context and some of the information came from trump political opponents. the house nunes memo makes it seem like that was completely omitted. so we just -- we don't know what to believe here. but the other thing to remember is the fbi gets information all of the time from criminals, from spurned spouses, from turn coats. this is how investigations are built. so it wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary they would get information with someone with an ax to grind. >> there are some thing in the memo -- the type indicated that this could be -- this was going to be sort of a -- a silver bullet in the mueller

investigation. and it was the -- the implication was the steele dossier was the lone document, the lone piece of evidence used to launch the investigation but the memo admits the investigation was launched beforehand. so in some ways, does that give the memo more credibility? >> actually i think that makes the memo pretty much a bust. for me, as a journalist, i was hoping to learn something about the mueller investigation. i learned nothing from this memo. and you're absolutely right. >> a lot of republicans are saying this this mueller investigation is a poisonous treat and this is the fruit. it is based on a fraud on the fisa court. about what we learn in the memo is that the investigation started months before the surveillance of carter page and we know that. but the memo confirms it in black and white in a top secret document. the investigation started with something having nothing to do with carter page. a guy named george papadapoulos and a trip from an australian

diplomat and that happens months later. so even if this is true, how could this mean the mueller investigation is invalid. and the memo doesn't explain how carter page is relevant to today's investigation into whether the trump campaign colluded with russia. in fact he may not be in the least, chuck. >> and there is one other part that is missing in this memo and in the democratic memo, when you renew a face -- fisa warrant you have to show you are making progress and the warrant is producing something. is that always the case. if that is a case that is a missing piece in the puzzle. >> according to legal experts, yes, you have to show the surveillance was productive and four separate federal judges ruled on first the initial application and then the three renewals two of which during trump administration. so that is significant. that is one thing that we did learn from this memo. is that the surveillance of carter page, a former trump

campaign aide ficontinued well into the trump administration. >> ken, thanks very much. and tonight's super sized panel. carol ann and jennifer rubin, and joshua johnson host of a-1 on npr. this memo was a political document or an oversight document. >> i think as a political document. it is not at o-- at all obvioust the fundamental allegations are true. there is reasons to doubt whether the allegations are true. even if they are true, it does appear that there was substantial enough other information in the carter page warrant to justify repeated renewals of the materials. so is it didn't seem like there was a grave defect in the carter page warrant. and by the way, even if there was a problem with the carter

page warrant, it is not clear that the fruits of that warrant have played any substantial role in the subsequent investigation. carter page himself has not been indicted. so it is not clear that this is a meaningful contributor to the current mueller investigation. and so the fact that we have weeks of hysterical build-up to this release is -- is entirely a political phenomenon, not a phenomenon about the actual mueller investigation or the actual state of the trump-russia discussion. >> kelly, it didn't try to impugn mueller. i think people thought the memo would try to impugn mueller, so what i can't figure out here is -- is why the hype didn't match the memo and why so many members of congress who read the memo were willing to say the things they said because it is nowhere near any of that. >> and it seems that the -- this was all driven from the president. in the sense that even there is

reporting that john kelly said to the president, that having read it, it just wasn't all that people who were advocated for it had said it was cracked up to be. and still he really wanted to move forward. and look, this is a president who is willing to take any short-term political gain at -- at really any cost of -- over the long-term. and he felt very strongly -- you saw him in that tape. he seemed -- he did not seem to be happy today in any way. and in fact, he seemed annoyed. and so i think that he -- this came from him, this was driven by him. and i think there is a chance this could backfire in the sense that ken made a very good point at the end where he pointed out that one of the things we've learned is that this investigation has found information -- enough information to continue a fisa warrant during this administration. that is terrible headline for this white house. >> what is the fairest part of this memo. i feel like why shouldn't we

have extra over site and care about the fisa process. that is the central -- and i think that is part -- i don't care how bipartisan the democrats are that president trump is guilty, it is an extraordinary tool and you have to dot every i and cross never t. >> but you don't do the over sight by spilling it into the public where methods and sources of information are available the large. you don't do this on a partisan basis. they have taken what more or less has been a bipartisan agreement on how to oversee the intelligence community since watergate and they've turned it into a three-ring circus. and if i'm the fbi or the cia, do i want to share information with these people. i don't think so. and to carol's point, if there is one other that is pretty strongly admission here and that is that this campaign employed someone who four different judges essentially thought was a russian spy. i'm not sure how that makes that -- the president look good. there is a large element of just

kind of buffoonery here. and that picture i don't think helps him much. >> joshua, you are based in d.c. and you tried to lift yourself out a little bit. meaning you are trying to say what is the country seeing: what do you think they are seeing with this week. >> well, the people who -- i think people are partly seeing what they saw. it is kind of a roar shock test where people who find the trump campaign bankrupt see this as further evidence of the bankruptcy because the memo would be released or because it doesn't substantiate any problems. the people that support the president will support the effort to have more over sight. the larger concern is that. the beginning of the memo asks about the legitimacy and legality of what d.o.j. and fbi have been doing. legitimacy and legality. and there is a legit massey --

legitimacy but legality is the issue. nowhere in the memo does it allege the information was false or there was a legal problem with not giving the entire prove innocence of the information and because people are kind of seeing what they i feel like it makes it harder down the road to assess out what is real, whether or not they are problems, especially if robert mueller comes back at the end and said there is a problem but under the law i don't really have enough to act. then this just muddies all of the waters and the roar shock test is dark. >> and i want to pick up a point you said. the president was getting advice to back off a little bit. don mcgahn's cover letter included an interesting caveat at the end and i want to read this carefully. based on this assess. and in the light of significant public interest in the memorandum. why was there significant public interest? because they created a campaign. to be clear the memorandum reflects the judgment of the

congressional authors. so it is saying it is an opinion piece. don mcgahn himself is saying we know this is not nothing other than an opinion piece. >> so that should tell you a lot. and what it should tell you is that this is not classic oversight. this is not a situation in which -- you know and i agree with your point earlier. the fisa process deserves special attention. and if you had done -- given it special attention and you would identify real problems, would the counsel for the president be saying in his cover letter -- by the way, this is reflecting just the opinions of the congressional author and -- and we don't stand by it. >> and what we haven't talked about but a bigger problem is how the president himself set it up. essentially he tweeted out this morning, i'm looking to impugn the integrity of the people investigating me. he could get on top of a building in washington, d.c. and

shout obstruction of justice. it is so clearly a political act. which the president can't help himself by underscore and highlight that you wonder if this is -- if not an act of obstruction itself, but at least very good evidence of in tent, corrupt intent. >> the thing that strikes me about that is that don mcgahn is a witness in the russia investigation. >> i don't know how he stayed in his job. >> i don't know -- -- how he wrote that and he is now involved. what if this becomes something that winds up being looked into. what does that mean? this whole thing has become kind of this sauce that where nobody could figure out who is what and who is doing -- and that right there is another piece of evidence. >> i do think that it is interesting, i'm going back to my high school speech and debate days, it is nice when the other side speaks first. because then you not only have your argument, you know what they just said. so now i could go line by line

and say that thing you said in paragraph three, here is my rebuttal. i feel like tactically at least for me -- as citizen, it would help me to look side by side, but now the republicans have put their side out first, i bet there is very savvy democrats who say not only do we want this document out and now we know how to attack it. it feels like a weird way to go. >> and if you are doing real oversight, you don't end up with an advocacy document that there is going to be a point, counter point response by the other side. you end up with a factual account of what happened that people can look at and say, okay, here are the facts and now how do we assess them. i've read that document pretty carefully. i still can't figure out what devin nunnes thinks happened. except that somehow chris steele stuff got into a fisa warrant

and they didn't mention that there was -- the democratic money and that was bad. >> would the president have been better off if they kept delaying the release of the memo? and let the mystery continue. let the methodology -- it was growing and it may have grown out of hand but growing in ways that were probably helpful. >> and he could have come up with a defense, see i'm so responsible and taking care of national security. i won't let this get out there. so a little mystery is preferable to the dud -- >> he love the mystery. >> he can't help himself. he wouldn't do that. >> you are sticking around. but up ahead, how republicans are responding to today's big memo drop. we'll talk to two top members of house freedom caucus. mark meadows and jim jordan together on set. i think they'll have a response to what the panel said. stay tuned for that. ♪

♪ ♪

you know what's not awesome? gig-speed internet. when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. welcome back. so was the memo a political dud?

it is hard to say and it depends on who you ask. one thing is for sure it is hard for anything to live up to all of the hype behind the memo. >> i'm here to tell all of america tonight, that i am shocked to read exactly what is taken place. i would think that it would never happen in a country that loves freedom and democracy like this country. >> what i read today in that classified briefing room is as bad as i thought it was. >> you are describing the very elements of a palace coupe. >> if hillary bought a dossier and that was the foundation to do this -- wow. >> sean, this is bigger than anything anybody could imagine. >> when you say that, this makes watergate like stealing a snicker's bar. >> well i'll speak to those hype men when we come back in 60 seconds. of you. this week all dell pcs are up to twenty five percent off! save even more when you purchase a dell monitor.

and make sure you protect your investment. office depot® officemax. officedepot.com there'swhatever type ofhe end of eweekender you are,ton. don't let another weekend pass you by. get the lowest price when you book at hilton.com and we're back. let's bring in two house republicans for their reaction

to the big news on the fisa memo. joining me are mark meadows an jim jordan. both from the house freedom caucus and it is now true even on set. jim jordan refused to wear a suit coat. my mother would say why doesn't that young man wear a suit coat. and it is not unusual for the fbi to use oppo. clinton cash book was used to launch -- to help with an fbi investigation. and the clintons. what makes the use of the steele dossier wrong. >> jim comey said it was salacious -- >> some parts were confirmed and parts were salacious and unverified. does that matter. that is just -- >> they took it to a secret court to get a secret warrant to spy on a fellow american citizen and they didn't do it once or twice, they did it four times. they took this dossier and

dressed it up like it was intelligence and take it to a court to spy on american. four different times. not telling the court that it was paid for by the clinton campaign. that is why mark said. you are not supposed to do it that way in the great country. >> that is a fact four times. but the way fisa courts work, there was four different federal judges and to get the renewal you have to show the wire shown something. there is nothing to indicate that wasn't the case, you have to show additional information. let's be clear. and they got new information. part of the new information was information this steele leaked to yahoo news and they used that as justification. so it is one source whether it is a dossier or a yahoo news report to justify spying on americans. you wouldn't do that in your journalism, and you double source everything -- >> did you read the entire fisa

application. >> we are not allowed -- >> ask christopher wray. >> and we're willing to. >> trey gowdy has. >> they have -- >> and actually to draft this memo, and so -- >> and trey gowdy doesn't seem to be saying what you are are saying. >> he tands behind the memo and we had the fbi come in over the weekend and said is there anything factually inaccurate in this memo. and there was nothing factually inaccurate. now you could have the democrats say, well, we wouldn't have told the story that way. or we would have told it a different way. but nothing factually inaccurate. and i've read the democrat memo and i could tell you that even in the democrat memo, it does not suggest that there is anything factually inaccurate in the four pages that you've read. >> okay. let me ask you this. what about carter page shouldn't have raised suspicion by the fbi. and they have on again and off again this guy is on their radar. low and behold he shows up again, this time in an outside -- an op intelligence

right. and they had already dealt with him earlier. that is what the fbi does. it is an investigative tool it doesn't mean they know he is guilty of anything. he looks suspicious. you look at his actions, there is a lot of suspicion activity. >> but it wasn't carter page -- >> let me ask you this -- here is what is missing in that part according to the democratic memo. >> you've read the memo. >> i only have the highlights. as you haven't released it to the public. but let me ask you this, the allegation is yes mccain sa -- said that either part wasn't enough but together it was enough. >> they bootstrapped this dossier up. we said this months ago. we believe they did it and this memo shows they did it. and the facts demonstrate they bootstrapped this dossier to get a warrant. and they did it four times. >> has the dossier --

>> your viewers. >> it is not confirmed. >> don't you think your viewers would believe that a judge making the critical decision on whether to spy on american should know whether the democrat were paying for a particular opposition research. don't you think that is a material fact. the prosecutors would agree that when you go in to ask for a warrant, you have to give the bood -- the good and bad. >> you don't believe-there was a political -- there was a -- >> a context. >> you don't see that as enough. >> i'm just asking. >> everything that was done was a political context. >> in a presidential campaign. >> let me ask you this. why should the american people look at a memo that alleges essentially partisanship drove an fbi investigation when it was written in a very -- and released and sort of hyped in a very partisan manner. >> taken into -- >> go ahead. >> the key -- >> isn't that a problem. >> we've been together before,

part of that is -- peter strzok and lisa page partisan. so when you add that together. it has a partisan tone and what we have been saying for six months, let's -- a special counsel to investigate. >> if a partisan sees a crime -- a crime being committed, they should should be discounted. >> we are not saying that. >> but they are -- are we going down that road. >> you need to give the facts. so when a warrant is obtained, they say this is the person giving us the information and here is the credibility factor that you have to weigh in as a judge. and yet that wasn't done. you have lawyers on your other panel that would weigh in on that all of that and as prosecutor needs to be -- >> they didn't tell them who paid for it or about bruce store's relationship with steele and the relationship with fusion gps. they didn't tell important pieces of information -- they

omitted important pieces of information to get a warrant to spy on a fellow citizen. that is what they did. and you know what else they didn't tell them. they didn't tell them they had terminated their relationship with crist fear stee-- with ste because he was leaking to the press. >> do you think judges -- do you think the judges -- some of the renewals took place after all of this was made public. do you think the judges stick their head in the stand and don't read papers. >> but no one including you or me knew that christopher steele was fired by the fbi for sharing with the media until recently. and yet three different fisa applications were renewed without that knowledge being given to the judge. don't you think that is a problem? is that a problem. >> because i don't know what i don't. that is the problem. >> well we're in favor of releasing everything. and here is one of the things that we've been criticized saying they didn't have foot note and sources.

part of that is so that you don't release your methods and sources from an in tell perspective. >> what about the mueller investigation isn't legitimate at this point? there is plenty of suspicious activities that the russians did. do you concur with that? do either of you -- >> our focus is on the memo -- >> do you believe the russian tried to infiltrate our election. >> there is two different questions. one is was there collusion and there was no collusion. -- >> we don't know that. >> we do know that. >> no, we don't. that is what -- that is what mueller is doing. >> [ inaudible ] has seen no evidence of collusion. >> that is a different -- the point is -- >> she did say -- but she's a democrat. >> but there is a difference between saying there is no evidence. and that is what mueller is investigating. >> good the russians try to influence the election, obviously there is evidence that would suggest that. is there collusion? there is no evidence that would suggest that. and no one has been able to -- >> why is the president so

afraid of this investigation. why there- >> you talk about coordination. >> why is the president wanted to thwart the investigation. >> to date there is no between the trump investigation -- >> and then mueller would find him not guilty. >> that is what will happen. but we know today as sure as we are talking that the clinton campaign who paid fusion who paid chris steele who paid russiaons to do, what influence the election. and when we went to the fisa court, they didn't share that. >> so you just alleged that tyuh russians colluded with clinton. >> no they paid -- [ inaudible ] most hikely. are these people going to volunteer information. he's a paid informant. paid for by fusion gps and that took place and they did not share the fact that the dnc was

paying fusion and paying chris steele when they took the application to the fisa court. >> what makes -- just because something is made by a political partisan or just because somebody sees evidence that scares them and suddenly they become biased against the individual they are veet -- investigating you how does that undermine what they found. >> from the standpoint of facts, but from a standpoint of a warrant to spy on an american citizen. it is a no-no. and you don't do that. >> i understand that. but we don't know -- you are alleging that the only information that there is -- of the dossier. >> there is evidence. here is what we -- not only in this memo, but when you look at at the facts, everything revolves around a single source. a single source that continued to put it out with multiple people to appear that there were multiple sources. but -- and in actuality if comes backs to within operative. >> all three of us have a problem. none of us have read the fisa

application. >> i hope they make it public. >> i don't have the information. i'm doing the best i can. you're making allegations without any supporting evidence of the fisa application. >> an officer of the court has an obligation to share critical information with the court. on four different occasions they different release they paid for the dossier. >> why isn't your committee doing the oversight. >> we are starting -- >> we are doing that. and i'm on oversight. there is four people task force looking at this. >> and the fisa thing, that is a legitimate concern. >> it is. james comey left the fbi. mccabe is leaving. bruce sore has been reassigned. lisa has been resigned, and baker reassigned, and that should tell you what went on on the top level. >> and bruce is reassigned. >> an another person would look at that and say why are the people trying to get rid of people investigating him. >> i'm talking about james comey and andrew mccabe.

>> so you are suggesting that -- >> i'm not -- >> he got rid of andrew mccabe because that is not what reported. >> i follow his twitter feed. i think it is twitter feed does tell i another story. pleasure to have you on set. appreciate it. and my grandmother will be -- that is all right. a wild day on wall street as the markets take a plunge. we'll get a live update from cnbc. and meet rachel brand and you don't know who she is but she might just be the most powerful person in the russia investigation. she thinks she's the boss. she only had me by one grade. we bought our first home together in 2010. his family had used another insurance product but i was like well i've had usaa for a while, why don't we call and check the rates? it was an instant savings and i should've changed a long time ago. there's no point in looking elsewhere really. we're the tenneys and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today.

looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor. people are fighting type 2 diabetes... with fitness... food... and the pill that starts with f. farxiga, along with diet and exercise, helps lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. lowering a1c by up to 1.2 points. do not take if allergic to farxiga. if you experience symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking and seek medical help right away. do not take farxiga if you have severe kidney problems, are on dialysis, or have bladder cancer. tell your doctor right away if you have blood or red color in your urine or pain while you urinate. farxiga can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast infections in women and men, serious urinary tract infections, low blood sugar, and kidney problems.

stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have signs of ketoacidosis which is serious and may lead to death. ask your doctor about the pill that starts with f and visit farxiga.com for savings. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

a couple of exclusive guests for you this sunday on "meet the press." former white house chief of staff reince priebus joins us for the first interview since leaving the trump administration and john brennan makes his debut as an intelligence analyst. if it is sunday, it is "meet the press" and we'll be knee deep in russia. now to the latest on a dramatic day on wall street. and diedra bosa. >> the selloff, and stocks were in free fall. the markets worse day of the trump presidency. the dow plunging 665 to close at 25,520. this is the first time since 2016 that the dow fell. the s&p fell 60 points and the nasdaq 145 points. so what is to blame?

a better than expected jobs report which could lead to more interest rate hikes this year. that is it from cnbc. best in business worldwide. luckily, office depot® officemax® is here to take care of you. ♪ taking care of business with print services done right. on time. guaranteed! expert tech support. and this week all dell pcs are up to twenty five percent off! save even more when you purchase a dell monitor. and make sure you protect your investment. office depot® officemax. officedepot.com ♪ taking care of business

the energy conscious whopeople among usle? say small actions can add up to something... humongous. a little thing here. a little thing there. starts to feel like a badge maybe millions can wear. who are all these caretakers, advocates too? turns out, it's californians it's me and it's you. don't stop now, it's easy to add to the routine. join energy upgrade california and do your thing.

welcome back. plenty to dig into with our panel following our interview with congressmen meadows and jordan. and joshua, sorry about the josh -- >> you are allowed one a year. >> there you go. okay. meadows and jordan. they are standing by the memo. but they did tone down the hype. >> they town -- toned down the hype but there were factual issues with what they said. they said nothing was factually accurate and whether it was complete and concern as to whether there was information left out of what we heard. >> missing information doesn't -- it means it is factually maybe misleading. >> and particularly as we talk about this idea of spying on

other americans. which is very visceral. it is not like the fbi has never done that before. read the files on dr. king and that is the playbook for a while. but the issue -- the argument is this is partisan. i understand the argument about it is important for the fisa judge to know that the providence of this information was from the dnc. that is not entirely true because it was republican before it was democratic. so that is an issue. but it is material if you believe the investigation is inherently political. >> and in fairness, steele -- the steele wasn't hired until clinton was paid. so that is a -- that is a fair critique. >> but the issue is about this evidence. it is -- i kept thinking that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. this idea that we have said there is no evidence of collusion doesn't mean there is none. it just means we haven't heard of it or it hasn't come out yet. so there is some logical issues that we have to keep straight. >> and there is evidence of collusion.

we keep using this word collusion which has no legal meaning and is very amorphous. was there cooperatation? sure. wiki-leaks released the e-mails -- >> on the day of the access hollywood tape. that is coordination but not collusion. >> they offered a meeting to give them dirt on hillary clinton and they all met all of the top campaign people met at trump tower. that is corroboration, that is collaboration, collusion, i don't know what that means. now as far as the kog congre congressmen go, they said a bunch of stuff that wasn't true. we don't know what was in the applications and we also don't know that it wasn't mentioned to them, that implication of their statement was that it was entirel entirely omitted and nor do we know if christopher steele knew who was paying for it.

>> steele may not have known about the clinton -- >> correct. >> and that is a fair point. and ben, interpret mr. comey. let me put it up. that's it? dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the house and intel committee and destroyed the trust of intelligence communication and damaged relationship and the fisa application ort and inexcusable composed. >> for people that can't read it. there is a really simple way to know whether representative meadows and jordan are in the aggregate correct here. and it is that now that this memo is public, the fisa court itself is going to be aware of the allegations. an there is an institution -- it is not the house intelligence committee. it is the foreign intelligence surveillance court that in fact gets to decide whether the application submitted to the

fisa court was or was not deficient or was or was not candid with the court. the court is now on notice and you could be -- be very confident that the justice department and the fbi whether bring this memo to its attention, to the extent it isn't aware of it already. and they -- we're going to find out -- i think relatively soon, whether the fisa court is outraged, like the congressmen were or whether they react more like james comey did, like, yeah, really? that is it. that is why you're defaming the fbi and attacking career officials? and so i think you have between -- between your outrage congressional guests and the former director's tweets, you have the poll of the discussion. polls of the discussion. and we have an institution that will tell us which is accurate and my bet is with the former director. >> i have to say, i want to read a mccain statement because he maybe gets at the root of the

larger concern. latest attacks on the fbi and department of justice serve no american interest, no party or president, only pute ip. our elected officials must stop looking at the investigation through the warped lens of politics and manufacturing partisan side shows if we continue to undermine the rule of law we are doing putin's job for him. >> people feel that way. in the sense that we are not in the middle of an election and yes the russians have managed to -- assert themselves in our oelection -- elections and then watch the impact and it continues to have effects on the political debate and what we are seeing in terms of the memo. i thought your interview was interesting, while there was this outrage and if you peel that what away, it was not the memo, but what we thought this originated from which was the accusation of bias from the fbi and justice department. >> they keep coming bag to that,

and the problem with bias it is not a legal issue. but it can -- it can work. with a jury of your peers. just ask o.j. simpson. carol and ben and jennifer and joshua. up ahead, i'm obsessed with two things. the same thing happening over and over and the same thing happening over and over. and the same thing happening over and over. sorry. hm!? here come the accents. blueberries and pumpkin. wow. and spinach! that was my favorite bite so far. (avo) beneful grain free. out with the grain, in with the farm-raised chicken. healthful. flavorful. beneful.

when you have something you love, ♪ you want to protect it. at legalzoom, our network of attorneys can help you every step of the way. with an estate plan including wills or a living trust that grows along with you and your family. legalzoom. where life meets legal.

okay campers. rise and shine. and don't forget your booties because it is cold out there today. as you may have guessed i'm obsessed with groundhog day and more specifically with how the day has been completely redefined by groundhog day, the movie. think about it. when someone said the words groundhog day they are rarely talking about the actual groundhog day, february 2nd when punxsutawney phil comes out of hibernation to tell us if it is an early spring or six more weeks of winter. sadly it won't be an early spring thing year according to phil. no, these days when someone said the words groundhog day they are talking about reliving something over and over and over again. like bill murray does in the film. believe it or not, that meaning is now part of the dictionary definition of groundhog day. why is that? why doesn't groundhog day the day, the tradition, hold up on its own. here is one possible explanation. >> this is one time where television really fails to

capture the true excitement of a large squirrel predicting the weather. >> here is a challenge to you the viewerment can you think of another example like this where a term or concept is totally redefined in this way. tweet us at "meet the press." using the hashtag mtp daily. if we get good answers we might do this again at the same time next year. it is only fitting, right. we'll be right back. options fees in the market and no platform fees? is it happy? good. then it's time for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. e*trade. the original place to invest online.

successful people have onthey read more.on. how do they find the time? with audible. audible has the world's largest selection of audiobooks. books like peak performance... and endurance. books that energize and inspire for just $14.95 a month. less than you'd pay for the hardcover. with audible, you get a credit-a-month good for any audiobook. if you don't like it, exchange it any time. no questions asked. you can also roll your credits to the next month if you don't use them. audible members use the free mobile app to listen anytime, anywhere. ...on the go... or in the car. the audible app automatically keeps your place, no bookmarks required. so you'll pick up right where you left off, even if you switch your phone... ...to your echo at home. get more books in your life. start a 30-day trial and your first audiobook is free. cancel anytime, and your books are yours to keep forever.

listening, is the new reading. text "listen 12" to five hundred five hundred to start listening today. this new day. looks nothing like yesterday. roads nowhere to be found. and it's exactly what you're looking for. welcome back. it's time for "the lid." let's bring back the panel one more time. carol, ben, joshua. believe it or not, i think a lot of people are wondering is this memo trying to create the conditions to have the president fire rod rosenstein. believe it or not, there's an attack ad against rosenstein from the tea party patriots. take a look at an excerpt.

>> rod rosenstein, protecting liberal obama holdovers and the deep state, instead of following the rule of law. his incompetence has undermined congressional investigations. it's time to rod rosenstein to do his job or resign. >> i have to say, carol, between this and andrew mccabe, the attacks on unelected, yes, they're civil employees, but the attacks are unprecedented. >> no one knows who these people are in prior administrations. we have seen this movie before, this is the ramped up version of what we saw with andrew mccabe. the president said everything we needed to know today when the president was asked whether he had confidence in rosenstein in the oval office today, and he said you figure it out or

something. and our team has had white house reporting that there's no discussions in the white house about any firings and we know we can't rely on any of that. >> today the attorney general jeff sessions stood behind rosenstein. take a listen to sessions. >> those two, rod and rachel are harvard graduates, they are experienced lawyers, rod's had 27 years in the department, rachel's had a number of years in the department previously and so they both represent the kind of quality and leadership that we want in the department. >> by the way, let me put up the rachel brand baseball card here, if you will, really quickly to meet her. she's number three. if rosenstein either refused to fire mueller or resign, she would be the next person the oversee it. you can see she has a lot of republican credentials in the

legal arena. >> rachel brand is an extremely able republican lawyer, she served in the justice department in the bush administration. she's a very bright and capable woman and i -- you know, i honestly can't imagine she would carry out an order to fire a special prosecutor in the absence of reasonable cause to do it. i think more highly of her than that. >> jennifer, she does have a mark against her here, if you're a partisan republican. she was appointed by president obama to a bipartisan privacy and civil liberties board. so she's been an obama appointee. >> the state is so deep that it includes people that donald trump appointed. that's how you get, who appoi appointed rod rosenstein? who appointed rachel brand? donald trump. so these conspiracy theories sort of collapse upon themselves

because there's no substance there. but i will say this, and that is, there is a long-term damage to the justice system and to our government. good people do not want to go into government if this is the way they are treated and you will get a worse and worse and worse quality of person. >> there's been plenty of dark periods in the fbi, what they did to dr. king, some can question why the building's still named after hoover, it took a long time, but the justice department did reform over the -- >> an agency that we don't think about that much. people have an opinion on the fbi if you ask. but between the fbi and the federal government more broadly, this whole episode is really rocking the way that people view service to the country in terms of being an employee. we have had conversations on our

programs about where is the next generation of civil servants and diplomats going to come from? i think people are thinking for the very first time, which is why the conversation you had with the congressman are so illuminating in terms of what we expect from the government and what the government expects from itself. >> we think and yet it may be yet another turn in the hamster wheel in this investigation. can one medicine help treat both blood sugar and cardiovascular risk? i asked my doctor. he told me about non-insulin victoza®. victoza® is not only proven to lower a1c and blood sugar, but for people with type 2 diabetes treating their cardiovascular disease, victoza® is also approved to lower the risk of major cv events such as heart attack, stroke, or death.

and while not for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. (announcer) victoza® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing, or swallowing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. gallbladder problems have happened in some people. tell your doctor right away if you get symptoms. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion, and constipation. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. change the course of your treatment. ask your doctor about victoza®.

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.

we had a supersized show which means we didn't miss anything tonight. and if you missed anything, we're going to have it this sunday on "meet the press." that's all we have right now. "the beat" with ari melber starts right now. let me tell you, we don't always do a power superreview on this show, but i have one of the journalists cited in the memo, michael i ksikofp. >> keep the remote right here, no flipping. tonight, donald trump thought he was dropping a bomb on the mueller probe, according to the reporting. i can tell you from reading this memo and consulting with a wide range of