in some case someone left a package on a doorstep, it exploded and killed a 17-year-old boy, wounded a woman. a second explosion badly hurt a woman in a different part of the city. investigators are trying to collect surveillance video to come up with a suspect with we'll continue to cover that for you. thanks for joining us. that's it for me. i'll see you a at 11:00 eastern and "deadline white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. porn star stormy daniels is sending an i.o.u. to the president for her $130,000 hush money paid out allegedly paid by michael cohen. it completely unhinged commander in chief riffing about north korea in the news media while bragging rights to congressional seats hang in the balance. welcome to monday, folks. here was donald trump unplugged this weekend. >> a lot of people, lot of bad

people. lot of bad people rksz lot of fake media. look at them. lot of fake media. >> sleepy eyes chuck todd, he's a sleeping son of a bitch, i'll tell you. nbc is perhaps worse than anyone. i have to tell you. and msnbc is horrible. came to my office after gone to north korea and seeing kim jong-un and -- no, it's very positive. i'd love to beat oprah, i know her weakness. maxine waters, a very low iq individual. women, women, we love you. we love you. i'll say to friends, i'll say to friends, did you see my speech last night? yes. i have to say, how good was i? how good? and they say, good. >> oh, my god, get some new friends. multiple news organizations confirm that donald trump --

that donald trump is the one we should expect to see on the campaign trails in midterm elections near. the associated press reporting his staff hollowing out, his agenda languishing, president trump is increasingly flying solo. but someone must feel that the twin threats of a porn star in the midst of a sustained legal and media campaign just to tell her story and the special counsel probe into team trump's ties to russia may be more than the current stable of top people could handle. that could explain why former clinton impeachment lawyer found himself with the president. "the new york times" reporting, president trump is in discussion with a veteran washington lawyer who represented bill clinton during the impeachment process about joining the white house to help deal with the special counsel inquiry, according to four people familiar with the matter. joining us now, one of the authors of that piece which inspired a twitter tirade from the president, "the new york times" reporter michael schmidt.

washington post reporter ashley parker with her own to borrow a phrase from the president's twitter feed, epic slew of stories the last week. and former u.s. attorney joyce vance who always keeps all of us honest. michael schmidt, let me start with you. first, your reporting on this attorney who was in the white house, in the oval office, meeting with the president, story the white house tried to cloud up a little bit after the fact. who was he and what is the significance? >> well, the sort of first phase of this investigation is coming to an end and that was the one led by ty cobb. that was the production of documents setting up of interviews between white house officials and the special counsel. most of that has been completed, so the president now has to prepare for whatever the next phase is. that is obviously the interview and then if mueller decides to do anything. and there is a sense in the white house that the president needs a really experienced person that knows what these things could look like to be in

place. and a lot of people think emmet flood is that person. he's someone that represented vice-president cheney, as you mentioned he did represent clinton during impeachment. he is a veteran washington lawyer with a lot of experience dealing with complex criminal investigation cases, very similar to this. and there is a feeling that he could be a real stabilizing force in the white house. >> let me read to you the president's response to the piece that you wrote with your colleague maggie haberman. the failing "the new york times" purposely wrote a false story stating that i am unhappy with my legal team on the russia case and am going to add another lawyer to help out. wrong. i am very happy with my lawyers. they are doing a great job and have shown conclusively that there was no collusion with russia. just excuse for losing. the only collusion that was done by the dnc, the democrats and crooked hillary. the writer of the story maggie haberman, hillary flunk i, knows

nothing about me skand was not given access. i have less experience than you maggie, but i know sometimes when he yells fake news, it is news he has not read in on. is it possible that he didn't know exactly what this meeting was about, that they said -- someone said to me this morning that you could get a lawyer into the oval office by simply telling the president, hey, there's this guy that wants to start defendsing you on tv and he'd let just about anybody in there. is there any chance that this defensiveness about the caliber of the current squad of lawyers is a tell about something else or do you think he really is on the fence about whether or not he needs more and better lawyers? >> well, the thing about the president's tweet that was interesting, we didn't say he was doing this because he was upset with his legal team. we said some folks that are close to him have expressed to him questions about how his legal team has handled this, whether their decision to be as open as they have been with the special counsel is the right one, and whether the president needs more of a wartime person

to take the lead. we never said that. but the president i don't think liked the idea this is a lawyer who dealt with impeachment on a previous president and that that had been in the story and he was trying to do everything to knock it down, including making false claims about maggie. >> maggie, who we know that he summons her probably more often than she summons him. joyce vance, can you weigh in on some more reporting in this piece that ty cobb may be on his way out? nbc news has our own sort of smoke signals that there is a change in sort of the tempo and pace of his engagement. times also reporting cobb has told friends for weeks that he views his position as temporary and does not expect to remain in the job for much longer. does it suggest that the promises he made to the president about things wrapping up, now that that's proven to not be the case, but as michael schmidt and maggie haberman are reporting, the stakes could be higher for the president,

negotiating in an interview, he could perjure himself over a question about stormy daniels and michael cohen. to say the stakes are getting higher would be an understatement, wouldn't it? >> i think that's exactly right. and this investigation has moved out of what i think the president saw as a hope it will all go way sort of phase, and now he is on a wartime footing. he's being pressed on a lot of different fronts. he needs an experienced lawyer to help him navigate these waters. but he has had remarkable difficulty picking up a lawyer from inside of that circle of lawyers that one thinks of as washington insiders, people who are used to justice department proceedings, but who is highly regarded would be a good pickup here. someone who could navigate a strategy ahead. >> and, ashley parker, let me bring you in on the idea how this is all manifesting. you are the one who has best

chronicled the roller coaster that is the president's sort of ire. and i understand him to be not down in the dumps, but incredibly manic. they describe this period as sort of mania. and your piece about -- your reporting about ivanka and about sort of the rise and fall of hope hicks and rob porter and jared kushner and ivanka, all this has taken a toll on the president, but his gamble now is on himself and on his gut and ongoing it alone. how does that manifest over the weekend in this stunning performance? >> well, i think mania is the right word because i was talking to someone actually in the white house this morning who was saying that at the end of the day, the president, for instance, is a performer so he can be furious at something in one moment and if he has to perform in a cabinet meeting in front of the media, he can sort of snap to and put that public face on and be in a good mood and maybe be in a continued good mood when he walks out of that meeting until he sees something

on tv that puts him in a bad mood. so, it really is waves and ebbing and flowing. the bottom line is whenever russia comes up, whether it's in an article like the one mike and maggie wrote, which then gets a lot of cable coverage, he is almost never happy. it is a thing that sort of sends him flying offer the handle. it makes him tweet. it's the thing that makes him call friends early in the morning and late at night. they pickup the phone and he doesn't even introduce himself. technically he's someone that doesn't need introduction. he launches into a rant. take his attorney general, he's someone who if the attorney general is top of mind he will often be frustrated for that original sin of recusing himself. but if he's not thinking of the attorney general or if he's not in the news, he may go a day or two and be totally fine with jeff sessions. >> ashley, i want to talk to you about late night calls and early morning calls. i heard from two recipients of those calls who said he's worried about his baby girl. he wishes his baby girl ivanka

had stayed in new york, suggesting that while it may not be something he knows about jared's legal predicaments, he is deeply concerned about his baby girl. are you picking up a sense that the president's concern for his daughter has him -- how would you describe his state of mind toward jared? is he angry, resentful, disappointed, protected? where is the president's sort of emotional, you know, sort of beat right now on jared kushner? >> so, we just wrote this profile of ivanka trump and that was sort of one of the key things with he did pickup, which is that he does not believe or at least does not express widely to our knowledge that jared has done anything illegal or even necessarily anything wrong. let's keep in mind this is the president who pays incredibly close attention to the news. and to put it mildly, headlines about jared kushner has not been very positive for a number of weeks. so, he does get upset and

frustrated when he sees them, not necessarily at jared, but he has gone to chief of staff kelly and said, you know, ivanka and jared, they're getting hit. it's bad press. it's not good. they should go back to new york where they're safer. one person told us he does view ivanka as his little girl. on the one hand he thinks they might be better out of the spotlight. on the other hand this is classic trump, often talking to jared and ivanka, you can't go back to new york, i rely on your counsel, i need you here. it's mixed messages but he does not like the negative headlines. >> let me show all of you something that happened at the press briefing that just wrapped up, showing that another week, more questions about donald trump's reluctance to ever condemn russia. we'll talk about it on the other side. >> you're not saying that russia was behind it? >> right now we are standing with our u.k. ally. i think they are still working through even some of the details of that and we're going to continue to work with the u.k. and we certainly stand with them

throughout this process. >> either russia using -- giving chemical weapons to a third-party, the latter being highly unlikely, given the nature of this weapon. >> we stand with our ally and we certainly fully support them and are ready if we can be of any assistance to them. >> joyce vance, if i hadn't done it in the past and known it was her, i would bang my head on the table. why can't they ever -- why can't they even go as far as theresa may has gone in saying that this looks like the russians have their fingerprints all over this attack? >> so, the sad truth is we all know the answer to that question at this point. there is just questionable conduct there that prevents the president from going there. he wouldn't condemn russia for interference with our election, even though every intelligence agency in the united states's lineup a tribd that conduct to

them. and this weekend he wouldn't push back at all against putin when putin said what he called the jews were responsible perhaps for any voter fraud that took place. this is just an ongoing course of conduct from this president who is either afraid of or in cahoots with the russians, whatever the answer to the question is, he will not hold them accountable. that's the only thing he's been consistent on in the course of this presidency. >> mike schmidt, you and your colleagues have now a pretty -- i guess the clearest picture of what kinds of questions witnesses are being asked about when they come out of these interviews with mueller's investigators. how much are they having to answer for what appears like the president's unwillingness to ever say anything harsh about vladimir putin? and to go even further, he has much more critical things to say about his own justice department and fbi and their leadership

than he does about vladimir putin ever. >> i don't know if any witnesses have been specifically asked the question why they haven't criticized russia. there have been questions about the president's interest in hillary clinton's stolen e-mails, why was it that he came up -- who came up with the term "lock her up." different things about what the campaign knew about the hack. did they have any advance warning about where the e-mails were coming from, were there efforts to get the e-mails. they come back a lot to the questions about the e-mails. these are things that the president said publicly. a lot of times we spend a lot of our reporting effort trying to pickup things the president said behind the scenes only to learn he said those in public. he told russia to go ahead and hack -- you know, if they could, hack and get hillary's e-mails. he was public about that. investigators are trying to unpack and understand how the president's public statements related to what the campaign knew on the inside. >> so, joyce, let me follow um

on that with you. this idea that there is a who done it going on, the size of coordination, collusion, whatever you want to call it, seem to be hiding in plain sight whether you go back to the rnc platform change, go back to what mike is talking about, asking russia to find the e-mails. it seems like the line of questioning, some of it, at least, could be obvious. so, i want to ask you about something that vanity fair is reporting this afternoon. just a question more on mueller's tactics. is he slow walking part of his investigation in order to bring more damning charges? the idea that he may have some of the these folks, he may have enough on them to charge them, but he may be pacing things out. there may be a correspond ychor he brings people in, to help build other parts of the case. is that a relatively typical practice in these kinds of investigations? >> prosecutors have to be strategic, and one of the things that prosecutors remind each

other of from time to time is if you're going to shoot at the king, you have to make sure that you can take him out. and we say that to mean that if you're going to really go after someone at the top of the conspiracy, you have to have all of the evidence lined up, not just evidence that we can see happening in front of us, but evidence that's admissible in court under a pretty strict set of rules for admissibility. so, i suspect that mueller is putting together a case, deciding who is responsible for conduct that he deems criminal, and that he's being highly strategic about the timing. >> ashley, let me give you the last word about any feedback or any monday morning hangover from the president's performance. i don't know what else to call it, saturday night. i heard a lot of, you know, yep, get used to it. but the truth is there were some pretty troubling things in there that i can't imagine everyone is on board with the president normalizing a demand for his supporters not to boo kim jong-un, a murder rust dictator,

but to go ahead and pile on and get back to the threats against the media who are in the room doing their job. >> yes and no. i mean, it's certainly not something his com's team would have laid out as strategic messaging. they do know, for instance, that's what the president is like. for instance, in those rally situations, that's who he is. they didn't know exactly what he was going to say, but they had a sense that when he gets in front of those crowds, those are the things that can come up and they also know as much as they don't like it, it's the sort of thing they should prepare for as he goes out in the country on the campaign trail as we ramp up to the midterm. so, not pleased, but not surprised as i would say. >> i think we're all getting used to it for better or worse. thank you to ashley, mike and joyce. when we come back, indecent proposal. the porn star offers to pay back the $130,000 she received as hush money to keep her alleged sexual relationship with the president a secret. in exchange, stormy daniels

tells her story. also ahead, donald trump backing away from a big promise of gun control after the parkland tragedy. how the president's made for tv policy making is falling apart faster than his cabinet's credibility. speaking of his cabinet, the tv president can't be happy with his education secretary round of high profile tv interviews. we'll show what you we're talking about. coca-cola company believe the health of our water sources is essential to the health of our communities. which is why we're helping to replenish the mighty rio grande as well as over 30 watersheds across the country. we're also leading water projects in more than 100 communities. and for every drop we use... we're working to give one back. because our products rely on the same thing as we all do... clean water. and we care about it like our business depends on it.

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. i can't read this with donnie deutsche sitting next to me. stop it.

>> little red riding hood. >> is that a thing in >> i didn't know until now. >> we're going it start over. a new chapter today in the porn star saga. stormy daniels is now offering to give back the -- you might have to step away. you you're making me laugh. >> i'm not doing anything. >> all right. stormy daniels offering to give back the $130,000 she was paid for her silence in exchange for the freedom to speak out. according to a letter from her lawyer, that will permit ms. clifford, her real name, to, a, speak openly and freely about her prior relationship with the president and the attempts to silence her, using any text messages, photos and/or videos relating to the president she may have in her possession. meanwhile, team trump might be taking action of its own from buzzfeed. quote, lawyers associated with president donald trump are considering legal actions to stop 60 minutes from airing an interview with stephanie clifford. the white house continues to maintain that the alleged

relationship between daniels and then candidate trump never happened. at the table as you already know, our friend donnie deutsche who gigled, betsy, political reporter for the rnc plus i'm sure he's regretting it now, the chief white house correspondent for "the new york times" peter baker also joins us. elevate us a little bit. it seems like your colleague has reported in a very succinct manner that for team trump this is damned if you do, damned if you don't. if you don't let her speak, it looks like you are involved in an ongoing effort to silence her. if you do let her speak, she's talking texts, videos, photos and the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> yeah, the last thing you want is for her to be on 60 minutes telling her story with presumably some sort of visual guides to helping the viewer imagine things that we should

not imagine. i think that, you know -- >> don't make fun of him. he's giggling. >> i know he's uncomfortable and you're dying to get in on this. sorry, peter. keep going. >> i almost forgot where i was. this is not what you want for the white house. this is obviously -- you're right, damned if you do, damned if you don't. cover up is often worse than the event itself. in this case the event itself isn't all that good at all. i think, you know, they're stuck in a position where there is no obviously winning strategy. she wants to give back the money because obviously there is more money to be made than $130,000 if she is able to talk. and, you know, what does that leave the wlous? you can't get in a bidding war over this. they're kind of stuck. >> i am of the opinion, i don't think it's all that money. i think she has -- i think we put sort of the me too movement in too small of a box. i think telling her story and

giving back the money is part of sort of taking back control of her own narrative, whatever it is. i don't know her, but i think telling hr her story and telling the truth about this person who became president, their encounter the way she described it in in touch magazine, it was not unpleasant, it didn't go sideways. ten years after the encounter she was offered $130,000 for silence, an agreement that was never signed by whoever she entered into it with, her lawyer says the president under a fake name, i think david denison. but the telling her story seems to me to be more than about profiting. >> i'm surprised to hear you say that. i don't know if we would give her a gold membership to the me too movement. to your point -- >> i'm not saying she's a victim. i'm saying we don't think we should put this all on money. i think there are things that the president did that now that he's a leader of the froo he world, whether -- could he be blackmailed by the russians. >> i wish i agree with you. i think there is a legal issue

and i don't think there is a p.r. issue. i think what is baked into donald trump right now and we saw it before he got ee lerkted, people assume and they don't care, he is unfaithful, he's with strippers. something like the russian dossier visual comes out, that's a different story i. i think the only issue is a legal issue. from a p.r. point of view the more we talk about stormy daniels and not bob mueller that is a win for donald trump as sad as that is. >> i think the only thing that could turn on his head is his voters have proven they don't care about the russia investigation. they really don't care. i think it's gone on too long. they don't think there is any proof. but his voters do understand infidelity, and there's cheating with a porn star and there's sleeping with someone else weeks or months after your wife has had a baby. >> good point. >> that is to me, and charles blow writes about that today. dear america, come on, you can't be serious. the ongoing saga of a president

and porn star can't be added to the ever spinning list of a womanizing misogynist. i contend that we on the outside never really know what understandings may exist in a marriage unless the two parties reveal it. in this case melania knew exactly the kind of man she was getting. do you agree with that? >> i think it's true. that's sad when it comes to the way trump voters are going to respond to the story. there are few things we know about them. they are extremely forgiving of the president for his -- the access hollywood tape did not end his campaign. additionally we also know for a substantial portion of trump voters, if trump says something is the case, they're going to believe it's the case. if trump says he never met stormy daniels and that picture is a photo shop, there is a good section of trump voters who will say, we believe it, we trust trump, book's closed. >> do you think then it makes it inexplicable why he's fighting -- why the legal

battle, if he doesn't care, why fight? >> i'm skeptical the lawyers will try to block cbs from moving forward with the story they have just from having conversations with people in that orbit. they expressed some confusion about the buzzfeed report and additionally what i was told, look, it would be legally extremely daunting to try to block a media outlet from releasing an interview. for goodness sakes, "the new york times" published the pentagon pap erpz. i'm skeptical, i'm skeptical that is going to be a legal fight. >> there are a few times he has threatened to sue people and hasn't followed through. >> we're going to bring a lawsuit if he doesn't straighten his act out. he's a lying guy. some people represent -- this is a plain outlier. >> i see ads from the club for growth. this phony ad with the numbers were added up purposely wrong. should i sue them for that? is there a lawsuit there? >> the story was a fraud and a

big embarrassment to "the new york times". and it was a big front page story. front page, center, color picture, a disgrace. they were very embarrassed. it will be part of the lawsuit we are preparing against them. >> every woman who lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign, all of these liars will be sued after the election is over. >> i don't think any of them have been sued. here's a list of all the people he threatened, partial list. huffington post, ted cruz, associated press, the rnc, club for growth and national hispanic media coalition. >> most republicans don't like people who are litigious to begin with. it's not normal. i think something i really agree with is his voters believe what he says. i think he threatens to sue to

underscore he's telling the truth. and i think if something were to come out that were dramatically like visual evidence that discounted what he said, then you might see a difference. but as long as he is saying nothing happened, his voters are going to -- >> i don't want to damper your hope which would be my hope that voters are going to see this cad, if you will. we run victory laps after alabama where he won by two points, and that was a pedophile. >> the worst candidate -- >> and they still -- i know it's alabama. i think unfortunately with trump, all of this skeevieness, they don't care, it's almost part of his strength. i know as sick as that sounds to a lot of his audience, so i don't think -- i think the prey will be moving on past. when you talk about mueller, i'm talking about something in the end that could hurt him. >> let me ask you one question as someone who knows the president do you think there is any part of him that is capable of shame? do you think he's ashamed the

country is reading about a porn star when his wife and son are next door, humiliating his wife? >> i think he is a misogynist and i think his portrayal of himself as a swords man, as a womanizer, i think that he is -- he twistedly gets off on this. i genuinely believe that. it's hard for people to comprehend. >> people, do your people have any report of melania's activities and movements in the coming days or weeks? >> we haven't seen her very much obviously. the story has been out there a few weeks. she has been noticeably absent on a number of occasions. she has made a few public appearances but for the most part out of the public view. i don't think we have anything coming up that i know of off the top of my head where she's going to be with him. i think, you know, analyzing the state of presidential marriages, we've been there before. it is not an easy task, but so far she has kept out of sight.

>> when we come back, one of the president's most polarizing cabinet secretaries back in the news and not for her education expertise. >> i don't know anything about school, but i do think there should be a school, probably jesus school. and i do think it should have walls. and roof and guns for potential -- quick question. do you want the same tools and seamless experience across web and tablet?

yes? great! then you're ready for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. sweet! e*trade. the original place to invest online.

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.

so, they buy a revolver, a hand gun, they buy at the age of 21, and yet these other weapons that we talk about that some people don't like, they're allowed to buy them at 18. how does that make sense? how does that make sense? so, i say that it should all be at 21. >> really? your actions say differently. donald trump unveiled a proposal last night to combat school gun

violence. in it he promises to fund arms training for teachers. measures to bolster background checks and mental health programs, but no mention of raising the minimum legal age to buy assault rifles. our colleague savannah guthrie asked betsy devos about the omission. >> a lot of people are looking at that and saying, sounds like the nra got to him. >> as i said earlier, everything is on the table and we will be looking at this. the state of florida just passed a law this past week that looks at this issue, that raises the age -- >> it raises it, they didn't engage in a long process. they just passed the law. >> everything is on the table and this commission will be studying it along with many other issues and we'll be forthcoming with solutions. >> even the president felt compelled to address his backtrack in a series of tweets this morning writing, quote, very strong improvement and strengthening of background

checks will be fully backed by white house. legislation moving forward. bump stocks will soon be out. highly trained expert teachers will be allowed to conceal carry subject to state law. armed guards okay. deterrent on 18 to 21 age limits, watching court cases and rulings before acting. states are making this decision. things are moving rapidly on this, but not much political support to put it mildly. the panel and peter baker are back with us. peter baker, i remember watching and thinking you were on that day, this rolling conversation he had with lawmakers. and when we pulled out, we said, you know, we'll see if anything he just said comes to pass. it's another example in your paper and the washington post have both chronicled the frequent detachment of the things he says in televised policy round tables and the things that actually come to be. but it sure looks like what savannah guthrie said it true. the nra got to him. >> he retreated quickly back to a position on the issue that is

similar to what the nra supports. and so of course they're going to ask that question. now sarah sanders was asked at a briefing. she said no, we still support it. it doesn't have a lot of support in congress and therefore we can't just write the laws ourselves. we can do what we can do. a, it raises the question why he brought it up in the first place if it didn't have support. it raises the question if there is broad support in the nation. polls show vast majority of americans support something like this. the florida legislature which has been very gun friendly for many years just passed it. governor rick scott, a very gun friendly governor just signed it. so, he chose not to make a fight over it. he said the senators were afraid of the nra for not taking them on and now he's decided ton take them on himself. >> mike, i watched that event peter is talking about and he really almost bullied republicans for saying, i don't know why you're afraid of the nra. i'm not afraid of them. he's obviously afraid of them.

there are some connections between the nra and russians that may be an issue in the mueller probe and he ended up -- he didn't do one thing that the nra opposes. >> well, i think many democrats, when he first got elected, were nervous he could have this populist bent and not fit in the republicans. that resonated with people who didn't vote for him and didn't like some of his policies. i don't like him backing away. i don't think it's a good thing. most republicans and most law abiding gun owners think something should be done. what people fear is this would be a lot of talk and ultimately nothing will happen in congress. there will be no changes. for most people the status quo will be good enough. it will take a republican president to move something forward on this just like it took a democrat president to move forward on civil rights legislation. it won't go if he doesn't. >> we talked a moment ago about the president threatening to sue scores of people and never following through on that threat. the reality is that trump frequently on a highly regular basis says he's going to do things and then doesn't do them.

>> in two weeks usually. the signal it's never going to happen. in two weeks. >> if you want to understand what trump is is going to do on guns look at the people around him. the domestic policy advisors he's working with closely, folks on capitol hill he talks to about how these policy issues are supposed to work are not people who are interested in picking fights with the nra. that is how it goes. additionally, my colleagues have reported mitch mcconnell has showed basically zero appetite for doing what he would need to do to move forwards his own whip legislation to make these background checks more effective. it just isn't happening. >> one thing about trump, i don't think when he comes out initially says what he says on guns, he's not saying to himself -- he's transactional. at that moment he genuinely believes that. he is playing to the crowd at that moment. he's not saying i'll feed them now and the nra gets him. this fear of the nra about money, i have a simple solution. i'm not here to spend other people's money. what if bill gates and mark

zuckerberg and jeff bezos guys like that put in $10 billion, and fight the nra it would be over. it's that simple. >> i would say that, too, political director of the rnc it's not about money. democrats in north dakota, democrats in missouri, they are not buck being the nra, it's not about money. it's about the nra members do vote, they are very well organized. >> you give me $10 billion against that bucking and i'll bet on the $10 billion. >> let me ask you a question about humanity because there is this mythology -- >> i'm glad you come to me on humanity. you guys talk about politics. humanity -- >> donald trump's humanity, the mythology at the white house, and i first heard this mythology said to those who cover him after the syria strike that he was so moved by the images, the horrific images of the children suffering from the chemical attack in syria, does that help motivate him to act? and you heard the same stories after the horrific tragedy in parkland that this changed him. that's b.s. they lie when they tell stories

about the president's humanity. he didn't do anything. >> i think they lie on two levels. at best it would be a nanosecond that he felt something. but to some of our earlier discussions about him being a sociopath, i'm not going to go there. i don't think he's capable of the basic empathies we feel. that's what a sociopath. everything is immediately translate today me. i'm not inside him, i've known him, when we see children dying, we as parents feel a certain way. i don't think it translates to him and that's what makes him a sociopath. >> i don't know it does or doesn't. it doesn't translate into action. peter baker, let me give you the last word. you have chronicled all of these episodes, the strike in syria, the response to parkland, his response to the hurricanes and there are moments where the white house likes to tell a story to those of us who cover him of the president being moved or of a human getting his attention. but there isn't a single instance of that being followed by a change in policy.

am i missing something? >> well, i think you make a good point. i'm not sure he's not moved. i think he very well may be moved. but the truth is -- >> he doesn't do anything. >> in washington, you know the simplest way to kill something is to play for time, right? if you are against something changing you play for time. emotions wear down. energy wears down. momentum wears down. this happened with president obama. i remember after the newtown shooting we asked at the white house, why don't you go ahead and move forward with this gun package you say you're going to put forward now rather than wait a month or two to study. the emotion will still be there, the momentum will still be there. it wasn't. the issue is you hit it in the moment or you don't. people who are against change in congress on any issue play for time and they often do win. >> depressing thought, but that is the sad truth about washington. peter baker, thank you so much. when we come back, the president puts his credibility on the line on the campaign trail. but lays the foundation for his candidate to lose by trashing

him behind the scenes with friends like these. cedric, i couldn't even bowl with my grandkids 'cause of the burning, shooting pain in my feet. i hear you, sam. cedric, i couldn't sleep at night because of my diabetic nerve pain. i hear you, claire, because my dad struggled with this pain. folks, don't wait. step on up and talk to your doctor. because the one thing i keep hearing is... i'm glad i stepped on up. me too, buddy. if you have diabetes and burning, shooting pain in your feet or hands, step on up

and talk to your doctor today. was a success for choicehotels.com badda book. badda boom. this year, we're taking it up a notch. so in this commercial we see two travelers at a comfort inn with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. nobody glows. he gets it. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com

we know that when you're >> tspending time with thelass grandkids... ♪ music >> tech: ...every minute counts. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why at safelite, we'll show you exactly when we'll be there. with a replacement you can trust. all done sir. >> grandpa: looks great! >> tech: thanks for choosing safelite. >> grandpa: thank you! >> child: bye! >> tech: bye! saving you time... so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪

we need our congressman sa cone. we have to have him. we have to have him. >> the people of pittsburgh cannot be conned by this guy lamb. lamb the sham, lamb the sham. i hear he's nice looking. i think i'm better looking than him, i do. personally, i like rick saccone. i think he's handsome. this guy should win easily. do me a favorite. get out on tuesday. vote for rick saccone and we can leave right now. >> i don't know even know what to say about that. publicly the president lavishing high praise on rick saccone in pennsylvania. according to axios, trump thinks

saccone is a terrible weak candidate according to four sources who spoke to the president about him. maybe that's because trump likes winners and he's told us time and time again, in the election, rick saccone is hardly a sure thing. polls say he could be on the brink of a crushing defeat in a district trump won. he's handsome. >> this district is a district republicans should win. if you look at the poling that shows saccone down by 6, congress is in the district. republican is losing by half dozen points. there is something to him being a weaker candidate. certainly i think we've had a republicans have had for some reason nominating weak candidates. you mentioned alabama before. this is a district that is going away because of the redistricting going on. this is whole a a fight really about trump. this district is going away and he is way under performing where the president was. >> i think lamb is a great road map for what the democrats need to do.

military guys who are democrats to me, that is the formula. that is the anti-republican. >> let me ask you about the president turning on the guy before he loses. you talk about being one of the things that stands between donald trump and normalizing this behavior. he's out campaigning for him. there is a report in axios he's trashing him before he even loses. he turns on people before they have a chance to make him look bad, betsy. he doesn't like losers. >> i'm not sure how to make sense of this to be candid. there are a lot of people who were cited in that reporting and my guess would be that we wouldn't have stories like that filtering out if the president weren't comfortable with people knowing that even though he tried to help out this rick saccone guy, he wasn't that -- >> he hedged his bet. i want to talk about betsy devos who had indisputably disastrous

outing on 60 minutes last night. let's watch. >> have you seen the really bad schools? maybe try to figure out what they're doing? >> i have not -- i have not -- i have not intentionally visited schools that are under that are underperforming. >> maybe you should. >> maybe i should. yes. >> you would think it would be hard pressed to defeat steve mnuchin as far as stupid things, him saying no big deal making fun of todd, but our cabinet secretary of schools who basically her formula is the schools that need it, their not working and lets take it away to the schools that have it and when pressed on have you ever been to these schools? no. she she's ignorant and clacks em pathy like our president and this cabinet is a ship of fools. >> something got lost in the message.

i think the message is about school choice is that one she will be debate -- >> i'm going to counter act. that she said she never visited a failing school in her state. >> i'm lamenting the fact that we can't have a debate about school choice because she can't articulate. i'm agreeing she shouldn't have done that and i'm lamenting the fact that we can't have a serious policy debate about whether we should continue to pour money into public schools or give people a choice. >> do you nod. >> i think -- >> yes or no. >> i'm not going to answer you. what time does this segment end. >> if you've never been to a failing school and you think guns are for shooting bears, are you qualified to be the education secretary. >> that is a mistake. >> i like when you don't let go. >> i can't speak -- i'm a reporter. i'm a reporter. [ overlapping speakers ] >> should an education secretary visit school has are suffering.

>> it is a no brainer if you are leading the government schools, one would expect that you visit the schools that are und underperforming. and speaking about rick saccone before she had to do this media shpeel that is quite painful and doing it because she's heading this commission on gun violence in schools. over the weekend trump said tit is dumb and we shouldn't have it. >> we aired "saturday night live" because it is not so far from the truth and i know when "saturday night live" is not so far from the truth when they use sarah pillin. when they use somebody's own words, it has a devastating affect. bessy devos said teachers should have guns to shoot grizzly. is she the right person to one the education -- >> guns for shooting grizzly.

>> kids were gunned down in a high school. we need a serious person to solve a serious problem. is she it? >> clearly she is not. and going back to the one with empathy, what is so consistent across the players in the white house, we can debate policy back and forth and to your point choice of schools and we have a jewish word of seco and schools are failing and they need health and the instinct of how do we help them and that starts with our president and through his cabinet more than anything, that is what is wrong with the people running this country right now. we can debate policy, but basic human decency. >> that is part of the problem. we don't get to debate policy because of the mistakes and that is frustrating for people that want a policy discussion. >> whatever the reason for the mistakes, they are constant and they get in the way and they get in the way sometimes of good policy discussions that we should be having. >> let me raise the volume on this conversation and let me ask you if this was a mistake. the president suggesting the

death penalty for drug dealers. >> think of it. you kill one person and you get the death penalty in many -- states. you kill 5,000 people with drugs becauser smuggling them in and making money and people are dying and they don't even put you in jail, they don't do anything. that is why we have a problem, folks. and i don't think -- i don't think we should play games. >> i'm going to say something crazy. in a twisted way it makes sense what he says. there is one thing you have to give him and you know i'm -- i do not like this man. there is a raw sense -- think about what he just said. on the surface, capital punishment for drus use -- drugs -- if you smuggle in crystal meth, you are killing people. there is a logic to that. and i can't believe i'm saying that out loud. if i'm responding, his base is devouring. >> i understand the emotional response. but he is the president of

united states of america. the only leader that does that is the leader of the philippines, due erty. >> and he doesn't just say. it he does >> right. he does it. as a policy rollout. and is this one that he's likely to get even if his 30% base gets behind it -- >> i don't think it will because i'm personally opposed to the death penalty but i think this has a res onation with the base and people like him because he doesn't sound like everybody else and at least he's talking about doing something to stop the problem and that is where people are going. nobody cares, whether or not it is introduced in terms of legislation. >> you think we're in a fact free zone that nobody cares -- we have a hard time actually implementing the death penalty for murderers, do you think the public is ready for debate about -- >> i think they want -- i think his voters and supporters want something to do something and take tough action and he speaks in hyperbole and to make a point and he just did it again. and he has us talking about it,

which is exactly what he wants. >> one thing i can tell you in the federal law enforcement community is -- there is an appetite for those -- i haven't talked to a aufusa or anybody t wants the death penalty but i've talked to attorneys around the county who are pursuing lengthy mandatory prison sentences for those who sell fentanyl that leave room -- >> that is a real estate play. a billion is worth a half billion and i'll give it to you for half and that is what he does. >> donny will be named the commissioners of the kill drug dealers. we'll be right back. world's i, new york state is now a leader in optics, photonics and imaging. fueled by strong university partnerships, providing the world's best talent. and supported with workforce development to create even more opportunities. all across new york state, we're building the new new york.

to grow your business with us in new york state, visit esd.ny.gov.

where we're changing withs? contemporary make-overs.tate, then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com. which is breast cancer metastatthat has spreadr, to other parts of her body. she's also taking prescription ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive her2- metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infections that can lead to death.

before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. alice calls it her new normal because a lot has changed, but a lot hasn't. ask your doctor about ibrance. the #1 prescribed fda-approved oral combination treatment for hr+/her2- mbc.

our last question of the day goes to betsy woodruff. did you watch the white house press briefing and were you surprised that sarah huckabee-sanders couldn't go as far as theresa may did and blaming at tack on the russians -- on russians. >> it is extraordinary there is so much daylight between how united states officials talk about these issues related to the u.k. and how the british government does. in january president trump canceled a trip to the u.k. citing some sort of trumped up controversy and now sarah huckabee-sanders is unable to say what theresa may is dozens of people got poisoned and the russian government deserved the responsibility. >> i'm nicolle wallace and "mtp daily" started with katy tur. >> can i answer that question. i'm not surprised. it is remarkable that the press secretary will say that the u.k. is our closest ally and we have a special rell apationship and e