just didn't know it yet, like in the sixth sense and do you think there is any chance that is true. >> i think it is -- i think it is sleeping on itself. i don't think it is dead. i think it is just been lulled into this space where it is desperate and we just need to get to a better space. >> okay. that will be our last word. thanks to jim and charlie and donnie and michael steele. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace and "mtp daily" started with katy tur. >> and hi there. and if it is monday, is the president serious? >> tonight gun laws and school safety and the two americas. >> this president wouldn't be looked upon as being anti-second amendment. >> will the national conversation on guns amount to more than words? plus what the supreme court dismissal on daca means for dreamers. >> it is a great victory for all of those daca recipients. >> and is the blue tide turning

against nancy pelosi? this is "mtp daily" and it starts right now. ♪ ♪ good evening. i'm katy tur in for chuck todd and welcome to "mtp daily"ment would you take president trump seriously if he talked about going to war with the nra? would you take him seriously if he talked about seizing guns and background checks and limiting bump stocks and all policies meaning to go to war with the nra. who you take his stance on arming teachers and if he would have run into majory stoneman douglas high school if we didn't have a weapon and if we need more institutions. he said all of these things at a meeting of the nation's

governors at the white house and now congress has to sit through a pile of promises. if you have covered this president, as i have, you have learned that he will say anything if he thinks it will look strong or please the crowd or buy him some time. but this is deadly serious stuff he's talking about today. is he being serious with us and with congress when he said the nra will lie down. >> don't worry about the nra. their on our side. half of you are so afraid of the nra. there is nothing to be afraid of. and if they are not with you, we have to fight them every once in a while. that's okay. they are doing what they think is right. i will tell you, they are doing what they think is right. but sometimes we're going to have to be very tough and fight them. >> is he being serious about wanting to seize guns from potentially dangerous people? >> when we see somebody is sick like this guy, when the police went to see him, they didn't do a good job, but they have

restrictions on what they can do. we have to give them immediate access to taking those guns away. >> is he being serious about banning dangerous gun accessories like bump stock? >> you'll do a rule, you have to wait 90 days. that is what is happening with the bump stocks, i'm waiting for the next process but it is gone. don't worry about it. it is gone. essentially gone because we'll make it so tough you won't be able to get them. >> is he being serious about softening his stance on arming teachers. >> i don't want teachers to have guns. i want highly trained people that have a natural talent like hitting a baseball or hitting a golf ball or putting, how come some people make the four footer and some people under pressure can't even take their club back, right. >> is he being serious with himself? >> i really believe i would run into -- even if i didn't have a weapon, and i think most of the people in this room would have done that too. >> maybe the president is being

serious, maybe he's been deeply moved by what he's seen like many of us have. or maybe it is all meaningless. ultimately this is the biggest question right now. is the republican party serious about bucking the nra? we're about to find out. i'm joined by one of the most outspoken republican lawmakers on the gun debate. the congressman from florida, a u.s. army combat veteran and one of the few elected republicans currently pushing for sweeping gun reforms. congressman, thank you for being here. >> happy to be here. >> i'll going to ask you this question. do you take the president seriously when he says all of the things he said today. >> i take the president seriously but i make sure i'll hold him to his word. >> so here is what you want to do. you want to temporarily ban ar-15 sales and a ban on assault rifles and a ban on -- or you want to raise the minimum age for certain guns and background checks for all purchases, ban on accessories that turn guns into automatic weapons, more research into gun violence and how --

make it harder for the mentally ill to buy guns. the nra doesn't back that. in fact they oppose some of that directly. given that those are things that the nra is not going to align with, do you -- are you confident that you'll be able to get the support from, a., the republican colleagues, or b, the president on anything. >> when i go to fight for anything, i give it absolutely everything i have. i don't go out there and say something just to waste my breath on it and i'm a firm believer that every single one of us has an opportunity to be an inspiration every single day. we're going to inspire people for good or bad. i think the president has inspired -- some of my colleagues here for good with his remarks that he's made. i hope people could look at me and say i've done the same. but i take this deadly serious. i've carried that weapon in combat and had the opportunity to save life myself and the one thing i could tell you more concretely than anything is that i was willing to give my life in

defense of others. willing to give my life. and if i have to give my political life to save others, that is nothing compared to that. >> so what are you doing right? are you writing legislation. >> so i'm working on one of the things that i've been working on even before this had gone on was working on a bill for behavioral detection for the people that have the most overlap for anybody buying a firearm. that is the salesperson. giving them access to behavaroral detection training and i penned this up saying that that weapon that i carried in combat very similar to an ar-15 and an m-4, by a 14.5 inch barrel and ten magazine stacked with 20 rounds apiece of the 5. 5.56 millimeter and an akog and given to carry in the most danger country on earth because the army told me it was the best tool to give me to kill our enemies. they didn't say take this because we think you're going to be all right. they gave it to me because it is

the best. if that didn't meet the definition of what is an assault or tactical rifle, we won't agree on the color of the sky, but that is what i'm going out there and sell. >> what are you going to do about that? you're talking about behavioral legislation and for gun owners to tell who can own one and who cannot. that is a lot of responsibility into the gun salesman or sales people in that respect. what about potentially banning the weapons that you don't think should be in the hands of civilians? >> that is exactly what i penned. >> okay. >> that is exactly what i've penned. and all of those other things -- the one thing that i tell people, some of the biggest rebuttals that i get on this -- well that is not going to stop this or that is not going to stop that. i was a bomb technician. i'm well aware of the ability of somebody to go out there and watch a youtube video and create an explosive device or somebody to take an automobile and do -- use it for mass vehicular slaughter. but we can't do legislation under this premise that because we can't do everything with one single act, that we're not going to act and do something

meaningful, something important with each individual piece of legislation so i'll work on all of those things that i penned. like i said, i don't do things to hear myself talk, i pen those things because i believe in those things. >> who are you working with? anyone on the republican side or the democrats. >> i'll work with anybody that wants to work with me. i've been calling the white house to say, mr. president, please have a meeting with you and let me talk to you. i tried to pen it in way, you worked very actively for a travel ban and i think the reason that the president worked toward that travel ban was to protect our community. it was to protect our neighborhoods and keep them safe. that is a perfect model to apply to this. if we did that, to keep our community safe, because we want to know who has access, what they have access to, what are all of the agencies doing to protect those that are coming in here, let aa ploo that -- apply that same model for 90 or 120 days, let's do that for what we

define as assault rifles. who has access and what is the fbi and the atf and the state agencies, what are they doing to make sure they don't get in the next hands of the omar mateen or the next steven paddock or the next nikolas cruz because i haven't talked to one democrat or republican or independent that believes the agencies are capable of stopping our weapons from getting in the hands of the next people like that. >> so is the white house responded? do you have a meeting? >> i haven't heard back from the white house. but i'm going to keep reaching out and i hope to speak to the president. >> what about your fellow republican colleagues, the ones you just mentioned that believe they're not going to be able to stop these folks. have they come to you and said, listen, we know that you know what you are talking about and you've been in these scenarios, you understand the force that a gun can be used for, the force for evil and the force for good, obviously. has anybody sat down with you and said, congressman, we're going to work together to make this happen? >> so the short answer is not

yet. but we also just got back here into washington, all 435 members of congress just getting back in here. they'll be calling votes at 6:30 and i'll be having conversation with my colleagues. >> what is your view of the nra right now? >> look, i always tell people, the nra was founded out there to advocate for responsible gun rights. i penned in my piece that my grandfather bought me my first nra membership when i when was a young boy and i know what it is like to go hunting and be a great marksman and people that are collectors and supportive of the second amendment because they want that god given right to defend themselves, that is important. but the nra cannot be silent in this conversation. if they want to say that they're an advocate for responsible gun ownership, then they need to play a loud voice in this fight -- >> hold on -- >> there is irresponsible people that haven't had these. how do they stop that. >> they do have a very loud voice and they are using it on

a -- on a lot of very visible platforms. right now they are saying the media loves mass shootings because we love the ratings and white mothers crying. -- that is what they are saying and saying the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a good is a good guy with a gun. they are pushing back on any form of regulation for guns. any pullback on the rights for guns. there is a lot of corporations and companies that are cutting ties with the nra. have you considered potentially giving back the money that the nra gave you in order to make a statement that the nra needs to come to the table and have a reasonable decision about this in. >> >> i would love for the nra to come to the table and i threw the first pitch, look, nra if you want your contribution back, i think it was $5,000, come to me and ask for it and i'll be more than happy to give it back but that is a chance to sit down and have that conversation. >> but they're not going to come back and ask for the money. they're not going to come back. and why don't you say have your

money back and let's have a meaningful conversation. >> it is focusing on p's and not the stake. it doesn't have anything to do with the conversation. i've made my stance. these are the things that i will stand for and fight for. you could see there was a contribution and that contribution doesn't play a role for me doing what i think is right. that is who i am. nobody will buy brian mast, doesn't matter who you are. it is not going to happen. i served this country in one way, whether in congress or the battlefield without regard for any personal gain or personal sacrifice. >> well they don't like your proposals, i'll give you that. if the white house does get back to you, we would love to hear about it. please do alert us. >> absolutely. >> appreciate your time, congressman. >> all of the best to you. and let's bring in tonight's panel, nick con fisory and political analyst, zer lena maxwell, from progressive media for the clinton campaign and now

on sirius xm and noah flouds. thank you for being here. brian mast proposal are not stuff that the nra is going to like. they don't get behind any of these things. a ban on assault rifle purchases, raising the minimum age, background checks for all purchases purchases, the nra has been an obstacle in this debate. what happens next? >> it is an obstacle but also a frankly -- a very easy target for people on the left. who believe that it is easier to attack the nra than it is the 55 million americans who own guns an the 300 million guns in private hands. if we're going to talk about meaningful gun laws then we have to focus on the people beginning to talk about meaningful gun laws like the president and rick scott that are saying raise the age. this is something the nra doesn't back. and the president was articulating something very smart when he said that the nra is essentially a paper tiger.

because this organization has presented itself as an arm of the gop. there is one game in town for the nra. and it is not the democratic party. if the republicans really want to pick a fight with this organization, they reason that the nra is going to fold and i think it is a reasonably smart calculation to make. >> so is donald trump serious when he wants to go after the nra when they are not that scary and when the nra isn't the rabid pit bull growling at his republican lawmakers. >> look, i think it would be foolish to bet on the president's sticking with this line for more than a few days. he may change his mind again. he understands that the nra was the single biggest outcry that supporting him in 2016. i agree with people that said he is probably driven toward the measures just temperamentally. and he likes the idea of making a big statement and doing something and he -- knows who brought him to the dance and that is nra. >> there are so many folks that

brought him to the dance and different issues. >> they are the only major washington group that got with his campaign. and the nra is not going to flex its muscles by waiving around a big flag and getting angry and they will quietly kill these things in the crib. they will never get out of committee or ever get a floor vote or specken of on the house floor by a republican and that is how it works. >> he's right about that. i think that the president likes to talk big. he likes to act like he's the man coming up with the solutions. but i think that serious people would agree that arming all teachers is not a serious solution. so i think that even the fact of debating that is a distraction from a conversation about real solutions. because are we going to arm all of the inner city teachers and arm teachers everywhere or who have a classroom with 35 plus students. how is that teacher going to go into the lock box to get a gun in a mass shooting and monitor

40 students. >> what does this say about the country that we have the majority of people who think there should be stricter gun laws an the vast majority of americans think there should be stricter gun laws and it is this difficult to get anything brought up in congress. >> it is not like this is the default position the american people. there was much more support for gun laws and gun restrictions 20 years ago. have tl have been a -- there have been a change in opinion -- >> what prompted that change. >> i don't know. i think it was societal. but it was so broad and so substantial that we've seen a significant turn away from gun laws even in the nra. there is a clip going around of wayne la pierre saying things about 1999 we need certain restrictions and gun free zones on schools. that position changed with the country. it wasn't the nra leading opinion. the nra was reflecting public opinion. >> do you think the nra is reflecting public opinion. >> i disagree. i think they are a classic

business group and find a reason to be in business and collect members' dues so they have to find a way to push the envelope -- >> have you been to an nra convention. >> i haven't. >> i have. and it is a remarkable scene. the fear that they instill in you. you watch the videos and it's -- it is images of new york city and big cities -- and talking about the folks that will try and hurt you and take this right away if you. you need to defend it as roughly as necessary. we are with you and this is america and it is forceful, the message that they are selling to people who go to those conventions. and then you go next door from where you watch the video and see the speakers and you'll be sold all manner of weapon and all type of accessory meant to protect you and meant to keep you safe from all of those people that are trying to get you at all times. and you turn the television on -- i'm going on a rant and you turn the tv on and there is ad after ad for security device for your home. ones that you could see on your

phone because the bad guys are coming to get into your house while you're having a pedicure. it is this culture of fear we've created in our society. >> that is our business strategy. they need to scare us to buy r nor -- more guns. and i recall after newtown having these conversations on sirius and callers and i ask them why do you think the ar-15 will protect you. who are you protecting yourself from. then this was barack obama. barack obama is not going to come to your house himself. >> what if barack obama talks about seizing weapons. >> and nra is not protecting you from anyone they might send to your house. but the money is a big issue. the way our politics fundamentally work is the big money and special interest have outsides influence in what are politicians do and until we get the money out of our politics, we're going to have 97% of the american public supporting something that congress will not vote for. >> one last question. what if barack obama got up on a stage and talked about giving

law enforcement the authority though seize a weapon from somebody that they didn't deem mentally fit. donald trump did that today. >> there would be panic in the streets from nra reporters and gun owners and i would sympathize with it. in 2013 we're talking about the post-newtown debate, democrats had an amendment that would have been a assault weapons ban and 15 democrats and one democrat voting independent voted against it. because there was a democratic president that would sign it into law. it wouldn't have gotten to 60 otherwise but you could have had a statement of principle and they didn't because it is not where the country was at. it wasn't at that -- there after newtown and it wasn't there now. there could be some gun laws that pass and the president is giving members cover but it has to be narrowly crafted. >> we'll see if things change. the teenagers in parkland are giving a voice to this debate and lending legs to this debate in the way that we have not seen in at least recent history. guys, stick around. we'll come back to you.

ahead, keeping da-- daca alive. the situation that is proving to be a major setback for the white house. i needed legal advice for my shop. that's when i remembered that my ex-ex- ex-boyfriend actually went to law school, so i called him. he didn't call me back! if your ex-ex- ex-boyfriend isn't a lawyer, call legalzoom and we'll connect you with an attorney. legalzoom. where life meets legal.

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. today in meet the midterms, potential signals of the democratic party could have an anti-establishment storm on the horizon. some party members are seeking to move on two -- excuse me, move on from two party icons from the bay area. first the california democratic party not endorsing dianne feinstein as she seeked a fifth full term in office. more than half of the delegates voted to back her challenger, kevin deleon. the lack of endorsement is not fatal in the california primary and feinstein enjoys a lead in the polls. in pennsylvania democrat connor lamb is out with the final pitch for next month's special house

election. in short, i don't back nancy pelosi. >> my opponent wants you to believe the biggest issue in this campaign is nancy pelosi. it is all a big lie. i've already said on the front page of the newspaper that i don't support nancy pelosi. >> her high name i.d. and negative numbers have made her a popular republican foil. but democrats usually don't say they don't back pelosi. so what are these two stories mean? they could be some growing pains on the march to the midterms but they could be a sign that the party is looking to get younger more liberal and is ready to move on. more "mtp daily" right after this. hold on dad... liberty did what? yeah, liberty mutual 24-hour roadside assistance helped him to fix his flat so he could get home safely. my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. don't worry - i know what a lug wrench is, dad. is this a lug wrench? maybe? you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™.

liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. it can be sculpted, bringing to life beautiful detail. or painted in luxurious strokes. and in rare cases... both. welcome back. a setback for president trump on immigration. this supreme court declined to take up the appeal of a lower court ruling requiring the government to continue daca, the obama era program allowing dreamers to stay inside the u.s. joining me now is justice

correspondent pete williams. you've been standing there all day. i've got the outline of the decision, tell me what is means for dreamers who are here now and who are worried about what will happen to them in march. >> it means that the program is going to be in affect for at least a year, maybe a year and a half. as you recall, the trump administration wanted to end it by march 5th. we've known for several weeks that wasn't going to happen because a judge in california said you cannot shut the program down. he issued a nationwide injunction forbidding the trump administration from shutting it down saying the trump administration illegally tried to close it. now the trump administration tried to take that ruling directly here by passing the court of appeals and what the supreme court said, is not so fast, you have to go through the appeals court but we expect the appeals court to act expeditiously. so even if the appeals court does act expeditiously it is

several more months before it decides whether the trump administration can get its way and no matter what happens there, that is appealed back here again. but it is too late to have this case argued this term that ends in june. so the earliest this case could come back is maybe this fall with a decision maybe a year from now. so mane those t-- that means th progame remains in effect for another year and people already in the program can renew their registration, but people who never signed up for it can't. so that is one thing to the lower court ruling allowed the trump administration to do. is end registration for first-time people in the daca program. >> pete wing >> -- pete williams, thank you so much. and our panel is back. i'm going to refrain from remarking -- pete is not wearing an overcoat and it is february outside in d.c. amazing. any way, let's talk about what happens in congress now, nick. do they have a dead line any

longer? or does this allow them to kick the can down the road? >> if you give congress a chance to kick the can down the road, they will kick that can down the road. and they will. because there is no consensus right now. the president has moved his goalpost a couple of times on what he wants. he wanted the wall and he got the wall and then he asked for more. now we'll have a big, big debate for many months over a comprehensive reform of some kind about the family immigration policy, about the wall, about daca, and we don't seem to be any closer -- >> are we even going to have that debate or is that just put off because of this decision. >> i think it is going to be put off. i don't think republicans in congress will bring this up and i think democrats certainly are going to use this as an issue for the mid-term elections because there is energy and they want to protect daca and make sure the students losing their status and those that feel unease because they can't go to school or stay in jobs, i think the human factor is what

democrats will run on but i don't think republicans are willing and wanting to have this debate. >> if it ends up being a 2018 fight, a political fight, a campaign fight, what do republicans do with this? >> agree, they are happy to get past the primaries. once you gent into the general, it is a issue and everybody wants to see something happen with the exception of the republican primary base. what congress is probably going to do is campaign on the issue. saying, we're going to have to get back into office and get back into another term and if you want terms that are favorable to what the american people want because the democrats are going to give you amnesty. >> so could this be good news for dreamers because if you don't need to worry about a gop primary base, it will pull you to the right on the issue and you could argue it in the general election and doesn't that allow more republicans to come to the table on a proposal that will protect them. >> i don't think so. it is possible for some republicans. i think we're seeing a transformation of the gop on this issue. they're becoming a party that

has a series of objections to immigration, both illegal and the kind that is legal and they're led by a guy who very forth rightly wants to reduce the number of people who are coming to this country. this is a sea change and they are moving away from the traditional american position and the traditional republican position on immigration. so i don't they it gets easier. i think these forces on the right grow intensify. >> democrats, to look at this very cynically, could have used -- if deportation started, that could have been a very powerful image for democrats running for 2018. that is going to be taken off the table. good. i'm not -- i'm not advocating -- >> you mean mass deportation. >> or dreamer deportations. republicans would worry what that would look like for them in their backyard, how do the democrats seize the issue and use it to their advantage now that that will at the very least be put off another year.

>> it is more than optics. at this stage in 2018, it is organizing to turn out the vote in 2018 and less about the optics and the messaging war and more about registering people and making sure they know where to go vote and ensuring they could go vote and there is no barriers in their way like a voter i.d. law that would remove them from the rolls like in wisconsin in 2016. so i think that it is a -- at this stage of the year, we're past sort of optics. we're now in a moment in which we have to mobilize the base that is very energized right now to go and vote and change the makeup of congress in 2018. >> we talk about politics but this is the constitutional issue. the department of justice said this is an unconstitutional provision and congress said this is unconstitutional and we'll let it pass, and that is similar to bump stocks. atf said we can't do this and congress allows the court to take action. and this is their prerogative and their authority in article they are to check the executive and they have no interest in doing so. >> and you wrote a commentary

about congress giving up their -- giving up powner this way. >> it extends to budget making and the authority to legalize combat deployment. there is no interest in executing their role as article one and that is something i think the founders would find perplexing and they are to be jealous of the power in the constitution and want to give it away. >> and so why? >> could not tell you. there are easier ways for members to find a satisfaction and his desire for ambition, camera time, speaking circuits, it is not their prerogative. >> the desire to stay in office as long as they could possibly stay in office. all right. stick around. we'll come back to you again a little bit later. ahead, lessons from 9/11. a new series explores what the cia and fbi learned from the terror attacks. we'll talk with two of the stars, jeff daniels and peter sars guard, next. what would our founding fathers

want us to do about this president? i'm tom steyer, and when those patriots wrote the constitution here in philadelphia, they had just repelled an invading foreign power. so they created the commander in chief to protect us from enemy attack. the justice department just indicted 13 russians for sabotaging our elections. an electronic attack on america that the chief investigator called "warfare". so what did this president do? nothing. and is he doing anything to prevent a future attack? the head of the fbi says no. this president has failed his most important responsibility-

protecting our country. the first question is: why? what is in his and his family's business dealings with russia that he is so determined to hide, that he'd betray our country? and the second question is: why is he still president? join us today. we have to do something. when this bell rings... ...it starts a chain reaction... ...that's heard throughout the connected business world. at&t network security helps protect business, from the largest financial markets to the smallest transactions, by sensing cyber-attacks in near real time and automatically deploying countermeasures. keeping the world of business connected and protected. that's the power of and. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, little things can be a big deal.

that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. - there's a common thread i see every time i'm in the field. while this was burning, you were saving other homes. neighbors helping neighbors and strangers alike.

- this is what america's about. - sometimes it's nice to see all the good that's out there. bringing folks out, we have seen it in community after community. up next, president trump leaves jared kushner security clearance in john kelly's hands. ive -- ivanka trump weighs in as well. keep it right here. ( ♪ ) the 2018 cadillac xt5. ♪ worship me beauty, greater than the sum of its parts. get this low-mileage lease on this cadillac xt5

from around $329 per month. visit your local cadillac dealer. ( ♪ ) ♪ worship me

( ♪ ) ♪ wild thing ♪ applebee's handcrafted burgers. any burger just $7.99. now that's eatin good in the neighborhood. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.

after the 9/11 terror attacks, many americans were terrified about what was coming next. but for the intelligence and law enforcement community, moving forward required looking back at the rivalry within the cia and

fbi before the attacks. lawrence write won a pulitzer prize about the lead up to 9/11. the book has been adapted into a series premiering on hulu this wednesday. >> you got a stash of in tell that you refuse to share with my agents. >> if we were in possession of such a computer and i'm not confirming that we are, it would be a foreign intelligence matter. not a law enforcement matter. >> so you do have the hard drive? >> i don't now how reach that -- >> how would you know if it is a law enforcement or intelligence matter if you haven't looked at the hard drive. >> peter daniels and peter sarsgaard sat down to talk with chuck todd about the series. >> it is amazing among the first episodes you deal with in this ten-episode deal, is this idea is osama bin laden is about to do a interview with abc. that was happening. he was an undercovered issue in person in our news media in the

late 90s because we were focused on another story. bill clinton and monica lewinsky. how much did you learn that you realize you didn't know just as american citizens. >> all of it. i didn't know any of it. i knew nothing about the turmoil between the cia and the fbi, both of whom thought they were right. i didn't know who john o'neal was. >> what did you know about osama bin laden, pete? >> i feel like i had some knowledge of him. i'm a new yorker and we had the first world trade center bombing in the garage. so it was a name. but nothing like we know it now. >> that was o'neal's problem. was that he kept pounding people and you got to pay attention to this guy. oh, he's just some guy in a tent in afghanistan, what are we worried about. o'neal kept hearing that. >> some of the movies, you have outside consultants. any former fbi or cia. >> i have a lot of help from ali

suvon. >> and john's partners. >> what do you think they will think when they see all the episodes. will they think it is too tough on the fbi or the cia or -- >> it depends on perspective. >> i'm sure everyone will feel both maligned and supported at various parts. we're not out to support any one agency or point of view. >> what are we supposed to take away. what do you want the viewer to take away divided we fail. >> >> and that is the message. >> i think -- art asked questions. so the question is, this happened because we were divided. >> are we supposed to get the sense if these two guys worked together better they would have stopped 9/11. >> yes. >> is that what we're supposed to take away from this. >> it could be argued. it asks that question. >> and you went right there. you said yes. >> i think so. >> well i asked the question. >> yeah, i mean i feel like when

you look at the information that the cia had, the thing with the cia at that point is like if you share that information with the fbi, they might go out and rest everyone that you are going to want to track. >> and this is always the challenge with intelligence. how much illegalality do you let happen to learn more. >> sure. >> that is the trade-off. >> and you learn things from people who are the bad guys, a lot of the time. it is the person who turned and said the terrorist who comes in and said i would like to share information and those are the people. >> let me ask you about the me-to movement. how has it changed? i've talked to folks in hollywood and how would you say that things have changed in hollywood? >> i think it's a revolutionary times about a lot of things and that is right in there. fully support it. absolutely fully support it. >> do you notice a difference just on sets yet. >> i don't know.

>> i wasn't around that crap. i wasn't around it. >> woody allen films. actors are saying a couple of things things, you both appeared in some woody allen, some are giving money back and some say they will never appear on a woody allen film. i get this art is art and line of what is art and when do you leave somebody's politics or personality or whatever -- however you want to do it, where are you on this? >> it is such a complicated question. i mean, i believe people when they say i was assaulted or i was molested or something like that. because i don't think you really have any other choice. because if we start not believing people, it is a slippery slope. so that's -- >> the hard part is why would they make it up and put themselves or label themselves -- >> they say that it is very, very rare that somebody makes something like that up.

so i would rather error on that side. i know that -- >> does that made -- you would think twice before taking another part in a woody allen movie. >> i've already done a woody allen movie. >> but would you do another? >> no. >> what about you, jeff? >> that was hard. it is a difficult decision because of prorosa cairo. that movie will be a great experience and a great movie for me and he will always be a great american filmmaker and i got to work with him at the age of 30 and it changes my life. al of -- all of that and i believe dylan farrow. so i do another one with woody? the difficult decision would be to turn him down. because of purple rose. >> the-- throughout histories te were so many artists with bad behavior. picasso and one after another and in all professions. >> and it is accepted in

artists. they are the eccentric. >> with you can be polyic. >> and they are eccentric. >> i could continue to watch woody allen movies. these a fantastic filmmakers. >> thank you. >> thanks so much. >> ahead, the battle over jared kushner's security clearance. should he keep it or shouldn't he? his wife responds an nbc news exclusive interview. ♪ we the people... are defined by the things we share. and the ones we love. who never stop wondering what we'll do or where we'll go next. we the people who are better together than we are alone... are unstoppable. welcome to the entirely new expedition.

so we know how to cover almost we've anything.st everything even a "red-hot mascot." [mascot] hey-oooo! whoop, whoop! [crowd 1] hey, you're on fire! [mascot] you bet i am! [crowd 2] dude, you're on fire! [mascot] oh, yeah! [crowd 3] no, you're on fire! look behind you. [mascot] i'm cool. i'm cool. [burke] that's one way to fire up the crowd. but we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ at planters, we put fresh roawhich has its drawbacks.an, guys, know anything about this missing inventory? wasn't me! the cheeks don't lie, chet... irresistibly planters.

president trump's family members serving as white house advisers remain in security clearance limbo. the president says he's leaving the decision up to his chief of staff, politico reports that kelly does not plan to recommend to the president that he -- that he grant jared kushner a waiver but unlikely to resign if he decides to do so. my colleague -- my colleague peter alexander sat down for an exclusive one-on-one interview with ivanka trump and asked her about the security clearance gridlock. >> given the fact that it is reported that in november that both you and your husband still have interim security clearance, i guess the simple question is is it appropriate for family members to have exceptions granted to them when they serve in that regard. >> we will be treated like everyone else will be treated. we've been fully cooperative and

transparent. chief of staff john kelly has made his thoughts and intentions very clear on the fact that he wants to stream line and modernize this process. and i think that is a very good thing and a very positive thing for the people in the white house and beyond.

a hilton getaway means you get more because you get a break on breakfast get an extra day by the pool get to spend more time together get more from your spring break getaway with exclusive hilton offers. book yours, only at hilton.com

welcome back. it's time for "the lid." the panel is back. we just played a moment with ivanka trump and peter alexander. she also had another moment with him where he asked her about all of the accusers that are now facing, that have been facing her father. take a listen. >> your father's been accused of sexual misconduct by roughly 19 women. do you believe your father's accusers? >> i think's a pretty inappropriate question to ask a

daughter if she believes the accusers of her father when he's affirmatively stated that there's no truth to it. i don't think that's a question you would ask many other daughters. >> there haven't been a situation where the accusations have not been this many. >> there have been some similar parallels, and i don't think you would be asking the same question. >> do you believe the women to be making it up? >> i believe my father. i know my father. i believe i have that right as a daughter to believe my father. >> message to ivanka trump. you work in the white house, that question is fair game. if she was referring to chelsea clinton, chelsea clinton had never worked in the white house. >> and chelsea clinton had taken those questions.

i think it's totally fair. >> totally fair. >> she didn't say i don't believe the women. she said i believe my dad. i'm a daughter. i believe my dad. that was a little different. >> let's talk about the fact that she has a white house position. she's an adviser to the president. she works in the west wing. she's got an office in the west wing, and she's telling reporters what questions are fair game and what questions are not fair game? would you accept that? any other white house? >> no, but as a machiavellian tactic, i think she played this smartly, she went on the offensive. >> you're talking about machiavellian tactics. >> she says this is unfair, this is an extension of all the attacks on this president that you are going to get indig napts and prickly. it's worked for donald trump in a sense. he's kept his base. she played that in a way that was reflective of some

foresight. maybe even training. >> she's a white house adviser. she's in south korea talking diplomacy. she herself doesn't have a permanent security clienearance. how many more lines are going to get blurred? >> every single morning i wake up and wonder how much longer we're going to pretend it's perfectly fine for ivanka and jared to be in the white house, i'm not saying that just because of the president's family but because of their legal exposure. based on the facts of what we know right now and the finances and jared kushner and the trump organization, ivanka's also exposed. taxes, money laundering, et cetera. we always talk about jared and his security clearance. but she's also in the white house with a security clearance with the same issues. and i think she gets a pass, and i don't know why. i think she's very polished, and she wants to put forward a very polished image to the public. >> authenticity. >> correct. but i think it's a little

unfair. maybe it's a double standard because she's a woman. i don't know. i think we need to be just as tough on ivanka as we are on jared. they both have clearances. >> that's another dynamic. she's under fire, her husband's under fire. john kelly has said he would be a-okay if they left their position. >> maybe it's because she's not in charge of middle east peace. is that the reason why we're not talking about her as much? >> she and jared kushner are essentially playing the role of a vice president in a different administration. they are the stand-in for the president. they speak for him. she especially goes abroad and speaks for him at diplomatic functions. but look, the problem for her is you can't pick which role you choose to have at any given second. if you want to be a white house adviser that's going to be your job. but you can't be like, when it comes to daughter -- you can't

just change those roles. >> and she doesn't answer anything. >> no. >> there's no substance. it's more a superficial image. very frustrating for me to watch. but i think, you know, when you have a woman in that high a position, because working in the white house is not something -- it's a privilege to work in the white house and get tax ppayer money for your salary. she is in a privileged position and is responsible for answering questions. whether or not she's comfortable asking those questions, we'll ask chelsea clinton if she was comfortable answering those questions. >> what does john kelly do? ? >> he hopes that they are sick of this stuff. >> the decision is up to him. is it really up to him? >> i think the president is very clear how he wanted the decision to go. and i suspect that john kelly has to weigh that. >> this is last week in the bilateral meeting with the

australian prime minister who waxed poetic about how wonderful a person jared kushner is. >> a high quality person and all the wonderful things he's doing before he gave that authority to john kelly. >> i'm not sure what the holdup is here. >> that's a very good question. guys, thank you very much. we will be right back. so, i needed legal advice, and i heard that my cousin's wife's sister's husband was a lawyer, so i called him. but he never called me back! if your cousin's wife's sister's husband isn't a lawyer, call legalzoom and we'll connect you with an attorney.

legalzoom. where life meets legal. customer service!d. ma'am. this isn't a computer... wait. you're real? with discover card, you can talk to a real person in the u.s., like me, anytime. wow. this is a recording. really? no, i'm kidding. 100% u.s.-based customer service. here to help, not to sell. new family connections, every day.llion that's more ways to discover new relatives. people who share your dna. and maybe a whole lot more. order your kit at ancestrydna.com

alright, i brought in high protein to help get us moving. ...and help you feel more strength and energy in just two weeks! i'll take that. -yeeeeeah! ensure high protein. with 16 grams of protein and 4 grams of sugar. ensure. always be you. this is food made to sit down for. slow down for. put the phone away, and use a knife and fork for. and with panera catering, it's food worth sharing. panera. food as it should be. your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness,

liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance. that's all for tonight. chuck will be back tomorrow with

more "mtp daily." "the beat" with ari melber starts right now. >> i'm tongue-tied today. i feel like it's a good idea to give it to you faster. >> did you have a good sfwheekd. >> i did. i'm going to have a long monday night. >> the trump white house playing defense on two fronts on this special counsel probe. first, they're trying to limit donald trump's personal exposure in any interview with bob mueller and trying as well to distance the white house from the top trump campaign officials here who are under fire, like rick gates of course who pled guilty to two felonies friday. >> given the guilty plea from rick gates on friday, i wonder what it says to the president that three members of his team turned out to be criminals. >> those were things that took place long before he was