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. this sunday, crisis, chaos and confrontation. president trump relying on his instincts and doing it his way. four new faces in new places, all seen as fighters and all speaking the president's language. >> a group of fbi and doj people were trying to frame donald

trump of a falsely created crime. >> as mr. trump gears up for battles at home and abroad. my guests this morning, former trump campaign manager, corey lewandowski, who says let trump be trump, and the lead democrat on the senate intelligence committee, mark warner of virginia. plus hundreds of thousands marched from washington -- >> stand for us or beware, the voters are coming. >> -- around the country -- >> it is with your vote and our voices that we make the real change. >> -- and around the world, demanding that something be done about gun violence. the movement has captured the world's attention, but will it produce change? and facebook's face plant. >> this was a major breach of trust, and i'm really sorry that this happened. >> mark zuckerberg promises to make sure the social network never loses control of its data again. can facebook protect our information and its reputation? joining me for insight and analysis are hugh hewitt, host on the salem radio network.

nbc news capitol hill correspondent, kasie hunt, robert cast costa moderator and heather mcghee, president of the liberal group demos. the longest running show in television history. this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. good sunday morning. 5 1/2 weeks after 17 people were murdered in that mass shooting at a high school in parkland, florida, hundreds of thousands of people led and inspired by students marched in more than 800 cities and towns around the country and the world against gun violence. we've seen marches for civil rights, for women, for the tea party. but this is a first on the issue of guns, the largest of the gatherings was right here in washington, d.c., where students from marjory stoneman douglas high school issued a challenge to members of congress. >> they know if there is no assault weapons ban passed that we will vote them out. they know that if there is no

tightening of the background checks, we will vote them out. >> we're going to have much more on the debate over guns in america later when we bring you my discussion with seven people in madison, wisconsin, gun owners and opponents, on how to prevent gun violence while still respecting and abiding by the second amendment. it's all start of the nbc series "solutions, gun violence," but we're going to begin this show with a president who increasingly seems to embrace crisis, chaos and confrontation as his white house management style. in just the last two plus weeks president trump has added or promoted four men to his team, all of whom the president considers to be fighters, replacing people who told him things he didn't want to hear. and mr. trump is gearing up for many fights, against china on trade, against north korea and its nuclear program, against iran and the nuclear deal struck by president obama and u.s. allies, against robert mueller and the russia investigation, and against stormy daniels and her claim of a sexual affair.

to some americans president trump's staff changes and legal changes mean the world just got a lot more dangerous. to others, he just did what was necessary to get tough with his and the country's adversaries. mr. trump is reveling in the chaos he creates and testing his limits. >> you're fired, get the hell out of here. i made a lot of money with that phrase. >> this week the president continued to dismiss advisers who had put up guardrails on iran and north korea, on trade and on his own legal defense, replacing them with a combative cable news ready team eager to say yes to his first instincts. on thursday morning, the president's chief lawyer handling the mueller probe, john dowd, resigned after mr. trump made it clear he was bringing in a more aggressive attorney, a frequent commentator on fox news, joe digenova, who has pushed this conspiracy theory on television. >> make no mistake about it, a group of fbi and doj people were

trying to frame donald trump of a falsely created crime. >> i think president trump is going to war. i think it's very obvious he's going to go to war on this. >> the president suggested that at least for now, he plans to ignore dowd's advice against sitting down with the special counsel. >> would you still like to testify to special counsel robert mueller, sir? >> thank you. >> you would? >> i would like to. >> by thursday evening, national security advisor h.r. mcmaster was out. former u.n. ambassador john bolton was in. hearing of the announcement appropriately enough while on tv. >> i think i still am i fox news contributor. >> no, you're not apparently. >> i didn't really expect an announcement. >> bolton is an advocate of regime change in iran and north korea, recently calling a preemptive strike in north korea perfectly legitimate. >> i think that their history over decades is that they, like iran, like others, use negotiations to buy time to conceal their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile activities. >> and he continues to defend his support of the iraq war,

which the president campaigned against. >> the war in iraq was a big fat mistake, all right? >> but the president has long been enamored with tv friendly advisers. >> who do you talk to for military advice right now? >> well, i watch the shows. i like bolton, i think he's a tough cookie, knows what he's talking about. >> mr. trump's shifting moods and willingness to be guided by fox news and other conservative commentators is creating confusion inside the white house. on thursday, mr. trump's top aides declared victory on the congressional spending bill. >> is the president going to sign the bill? the answer is yes. >> but on friday morning, the president tweeted that his answer might be no, threatening a veto, after many on fox news tore the bill apart. >> this is not what the president promised. >> then the president held an event to announce that actually he was signing the bill anyway. >> i'm feeling like i just saw donald trump get on the escalator and go back up.

>> joining me now from manchester, new hampshire, is president trump's first campaign manager, corey lewandowski. you, of course wrote -- co-authored a book that said let trump be trump. so we figured why not talk to mr. lewandowski about this. welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> thank you, chuck. thanks for having me. >> so what does the reshuffling under way at the white house, how -- you know this man very well. you spent over a year traveling the country with him. what's he up to? >> well, what this is, is the president again continuing to follow through on the promises he made on the campaign trail, which is putting america first. when he brings in new individuals, he takes information from all of the people around him and then listens to those positions and then he makes the final decision. but what you have to have inside the building are people who are on the president's agenda, whether that means this president is implementing steel and aluminum tariffs, if you're not on that agenda, you might not want to be in the building.

if this means that we're going to ensure there is no continuation of nuclear weapons in north korea, then you're going to have to make sure you're in the building and you're listening and part of the president's team. so he is bringing people in who are on his team to make sure that his agenda is moving forward. >> so your advice to anybody that disagrees with the president's agenda, get out? >> no, no, not at all. i completely disagree with that. you can have a disagreement with the president. he wants to have conversations on all sides. but when the decision is made, you have to be on the team because the president is the final arbiter. >> so if you disagree with the decision, don't leak, get out i guess is what you're saying, though? you're saying you can disagree with him, but once he makes a decision, you better support it. if you don't, then you should leave? >> well, chuck, what i'm saying is the president's final call. if you're a staff member, you have to be on the president's team. you can disagree privately, but publicly it's very problematic. look, what we saw this week was a leak of a conversation between the president of the united states and vladimir putin from someone within the deep state

and that is very, very concerning to the american people that that information is being made public. >> leaked from the deep state? so an aide to the president might be part of the deep state, is that what you believe? >> i absolutely believe that it came from someone within that building. there are very few people who are aware of the briefing document that the president was provided and very few people are aware of the conversation that actually took place and there should be accountability. >> let me ask you this, where did rex tillerson go wrong? >> rex had a fundamental different philosophy when it came to american relationships abroad specifically as it relates to the nuclear deal. he thought it was a good deal and the president has said many times it was a bad deal. the president has said particularly as it comes to north korea that he was going to continue to put pressure on north korea and that finally the president was willing to sit down with kim jong-un and rex didn't think that was the right decision. >> where did h.r. mcmaster go wrong? >> well, i think where h.r. mcmaster went wrong is -- you know, you had a number of generals in the building with

h.r. mcmaster, general kelly. i think h.r. mcmaster was the individual in the building who was advocating for a larger presence in afghanistan, which the president had talked about during the campaign that he wasn't in favor of, and more intervention on behalf of the military, and that's not where this president is. >> let me ask you about john kelly because here's what you told me -- you were actually on the show, i think, the week that it was announced that he was going to become the next chief of staff. here's what you told me at the time. >> i think general kelly is going to restore order to the staff. general kelly is going to bring the type of discipline to the staff to ensure that the leaks are stopped and that the president's agenda is foremost of what takes place in that building. so there will be no more back biting, no more stabbing each other in the back. >> well, that was july 30th of last year. how's john kelly done? >> well, i think by and large general kelly has done a good job in trying to control those leaks. >> what about this week?

you just railed against a major problematic leak. >> oh, chuck, i agree with you and i'm telling you i think general kelly, he has publicly said how frustrated he has been. they are getting to the bottom of it. now what you've seen is you've seen a change at the national security council, you've seen a change at the national economic council. what i hope both john bolton and larry kudlow bring in is a team which is on the president's agenda. if they find individuals who are leaking information, i hope they terminate those people immediately. you cannot be in the building and be leaking information about this president and expect to be able to keep your job. >> do you ever counsel the president to fire john kelly? >> no, i never have. >> do you think he's doing a good job? there's a lot of people that attribute the idea that you think john kelly doesn't have the president's best interests at heart. where are you on him? >> no, look, i've said this very publicly and i'll repeat it again. john kelly is an american patriot, and he has done a fantastic job serving his country. he has recognized how difficult

a job it is to be the chief of staff to the president of the united states. and i don't believe it's general kelly's job to manage the president. his job is to manage the staff. and that's what he has been doing. and that's what he continues to do. we've seen additional staff changes this week with chris lidell being named the deputy chief of staff to bring more order. we've seen an increase in the portfolio of johnny destefano in the white house, a gentleman who has enormous respect for both the president and general kelly. those are very important changes. >> steve bannon suggested if john kelly leaves, there won't be a replacement, that the president will essentially be his own chief of staff. a little bit more like how he managed the trump organization. do you concur with that view? >> look, i think that's a scenario that could very well play out. we know that john f. kennedy didn't have a chief of staff his entire presidency, he had it for a period of time. jimmy carter to a lesser extent the same thing. but the difference with this president is he is the decision-maker and he loves to have all of the information brought to him. i see him as the hub with a

number of spokes coming out. and candidly -- and i'm not advocating for general kelly to leave. i think he should stay. but if he were to go, i don't think there's one person that is the chosen one to step in and fill that role, so i could see a scenario where the president is giving instructions to a small core group of individuals who are implementing on his behalf. >> and you think that's what the president would prefer, that's a more comfortable way that he likes to run things? >> i do think the president likes the opportunity to get input from as many people as possible and that small group, call it four, five, six people who could come report directly to the president and then implement his agenda is something he's very comfortable with over his 40 years of business experience doing that. >> have you met with the special counsel robert mueller? i know you've testified before the senate and the house intel investigations. what about the special counsel? >> look, i have said very candidly i'd be happy to speak to the special counsel if they'd like to do that. i've been very open about i volunteered to testify 12 hours in front of the house

committee, i'll testify in front of the sub committee. >> have they asked for you yet, though? >> not yet. no, they haven't yet, chuck. >> you haven't been subpoenaed, nothing? >> no, i have not been subpoenaed. look, there's no reason to subpoena me because i'm willing to volunteer about they want to ask me questions. i'm happy to answer their questions because i have nothing to hide and i was there from the beginning so i know there was no collusion. >> but you weren't there at the end. at the end of the day. >> no, that's exactly right. i wasn't there at the end. >> are you confident that between june 21st, 2016, after you left on june 20th that there is no collusion took place on that campaign? can you definitively say that? >> look, i can say that during my tenure, chuck, which is all i can speak of -- >> just you're tenure. so you can't speak to anything after june 20th, 2016? >> i wasn't there. and what paul manafort did or others may or may not have done, i wouldn't have any access to that information. but what i have said was if anybody did collude with the

russians in any way, shape or form to impact the election, they should go to jail for the rest of their lives. >> did you know when cambridge analytica was pitching you, and i know it wasn't until very late that you finally approved a contract, i believe, did you know that -- >> no, no, chuck, i never approved -- i never approved cambridge analytica's contract. they did not work for the campaign when i was the manager, so we have to be clear about that. they pitched me three times. three times i said no. they did not come to the campaign until after i left. >> were you aware that steve bannon was a founding executive of cambridge analytica when you met with them three times? >> i knew that steve had a role in the organization. i didn't know what his ultimate role was, but that didn't impact my decision because i didn't hire them. they came to me three times looking to be a vendor and i said no all three times. >> you didn't know he was a founding executive, you didn't know he owned a piece, you didn't know any of those things at the time when he was chairman of breitbart news? >> correct, i did not know that was his role in cambridge analytica, correct. >> corey lewandowski, i'm going to leave it there. corey, thank you very much. i appreciate you coming on an sharing your views, sir. >> thank you. joining me now is the top

democrat on the senate intelligence committee. mark warner of virginia. senator warner, welcome back to the show, sir. >> thank you. >> i want to start first with all of the changes we've seen take place. i want to put up a quote from charlie dent, retiring republican congressman from pennsylvania. more center-right than conservative right. but he said this. the spontaneity and lack of impruls control are areas of concern for lots of members on both sides of the aisle. chaos, instability, uncertainty, intemper ate statements are not conservative virtues in my opinion. what do you make of the changes? >> i think he's right. this chaos is not the way you run an organization. i was a business executive for 20 years, i ran a state. it was called the best managed state in the nation when i was governor of virginia. but with this president, i think he thrives on chaos. maybe that's the way to run a reality tv show. it's not the way to run the greatest country in the world. >> at the end of the day, should it -- there's a lot of folks not happy with the instability, but

he's comfortable with it. should that matter? >> well, i think at the end of the day when he took the oath of office, it was to protect and defend the constitution and our country. i think we are more vulnerable by having -- taking out and not consulting with our allies. i think that we are more vulnerable when you've got a president that wakes up every morning and even his closest advisers don't know what he's going to say or do. i think we are more vulnerable when the president of the united states calls vladimir putin and in john mccain's words, not mine, congratulates a dictator on a sham election. i don't think that makes our country safer. frankly, when the president of the united states, who still refuses to acknowledge russian intervention on that call doesn't raise election security or doesn't stand up for our closest ally, the uk -- >> why do you think he's doing that? >> you know, chuck -- >> you've looked at a lot of evidence. >> i gave up predicting this president a long time ago. i do know this, that when the

president doesn't act, others do have to act. for example, election security. the russians hacked into our elections. they scanned or broke into 21 states. every one of the president's top security advisers have said they'll be back. yet they receive no direction from the white house to make election security a top priority. >> so do you believe -- >> this week -- this week bipartisan our committee came out with let's make sure we've got paper trail on every election. let's make sure we help states better information sharing. so if the president is not going to act to protect the country, in this case congress is actually stepping up. >> do you believe the president somehow acting as if he's compromised with putin? >> it is more than bizarre that 14 months into this president's administration he has failed to ever call out russia, he has failed to ever condemn putin, even after -- putin was accused of killing a british individual or a russian british individual in the uk. there is something strange about this and i think it's one of the

reasons why mueller's investigation has to continue and why our investigation has to continue. >> let me ask you about facebook. do you think they have been truthful and forthcoming? >> i don't think facebook has been fully forthcoming. i called out facebook back in december of '16. in the spring of '17, i questioned microtargeting and the use of this really sketchy firm, cambridge analytica. early on for most of 2017, they blew that off. they then during the summer acknowledged that there was paid advertising, but more importantly that there were a number of russian accounts that were fake accounts that spread information that touched 150 million americans. >> do you have concern that cambridge analytica, a founding executive is steve bannon, their financial sort of rainmaker are the mercer family. if you hire cambridge analytica, you got mercer money. and that somehow this -- and then steve bannon was also the chairman of a news organization

and they're getting facebook data. >> hold it, chuck, that's only part of it. their ceo -- >> are you concerned that all of this was designed almost to create, i don't know, to create -- to weaponize something that we weren't aware of, when you throw a media company with this political consulting firm. >> what we saw in 2016 was the broad weaponization of information, by russians, and unfortunately using some other tools. this same firm, the recently disgraced ceo reached out to julian assange about leaked e-mails. this same firm reached out to a russian oil company, luke oil, about working on -- trying to get american election data, and this firm has a reputation, it's been in more than 30 countries where it's been using disruptive tactics. why would this firm then be used by the trump campaign, $6 million contract. and i think there are still a whole host of questions. >> did you know that steve bannon was a founding executive?

>> i was aware -- >> were you aware of this? >> i was aware both from the mercer family and other individuals that cambridge analytica had at best a colorful reputation. >> i understand that. but did you know that here you had a chairman of a news information who is, i guess, more of a principal on this. was that obvious? >> there were reports around. what bothers me is, again, this is a firm that even i think the president's son-in-law, jared kushner, bragged about their value. then after the election, you've seen nothing but the trump campaign trying to distance themselves. >> i've got to ask you about this facebook ad today. this is mark zuckerberg's apology. i hold it up because if you can find facebook's logo, you've got better eyesight than i do. it's very -- this looks like a guy that is uncomfortable with taking responsibility. this is what he told kara swisher. things like where's the line on hate speech. i mean, who chose me to be the person that did that? i guess i have to because we're here now, but i'd rather not. does he sound like a ceo that wants to take responsibility for his company's actions?

>> mark zuckerberg created in many ways the whole notion of social media. it's a great american success story as is twitter, google, and a series of other companies. but i think the whole industry has been reluctant to accept the fact that we're seeing the dark underbelly of social media, how it can be manipulated. we're still dealing right now with fake posts and fake accounts. think about the next generation of technology where they can put somebody else's face on somebody's body or totally realtime misrepresent words that come out of somebody's mouth. this is an area where we have to get our arms around it. frankly, mr. zuckerberg needs to come and testify. he says he will do it if he's the right person. well, listen, i've got experts on my staff, but you don't want my staff here, you want me here. he is the face of facebook. >> you wouldn't go to a voter and say -- no, no, no. >> i'll accepted my staff. that's not going to cut it. he needs to come out, he created this entity, created this industry and he needs to come explain to the american public and to policy makers.

>> if the ftc finds they violated their consent degree, it's a $2 trillion fine minimum if you take the $40,000 for each instance, for each day that they let each instance happen. i do the quick math, $2 trillion. should that be the level of fine they should potentially be subject to? >> the ftc has to determine whether they violated the 2011 consent decree. they'll work through that -- >> if they did, should you see maximum penalty? >> there will be appropriate penalties, but i think it raises the bigger question. all of these social media platform companies have said they have no responsibility for any of the content. i think we have to relook at that. i think in many ways they're media companies. i think we have to relook at the fact that if you move from one company to the other, maybe you should be able to move all your data. there are solutions. and what i invite mr. zuckerberg and others is come help work with us. congress is not always at the best in terms of cutting edge technology. they need to work with us so we try to get it right. i don't want to outregulate these companies into oblivion

but i do think people need to have the ability to know whether information that they're receiving is honest, truthful or at least originates in this country. >> senator warner, thanks for coming on and sharing your views. i think if you're a social media company, you can drop the word social. you're a media company. thank you, sir. hen we come back, we'll break down the flurry of changes in the trump administration. hundreds of thousands around the world join the march for our lives. we talk to a group of voters, gun owners and gun opponents about what they think can be done to stop gun violence.

discover card. customer service! 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. caller: really? no, i'm kidding. 100% u.s.-based customer service, here to help, not to sell. but how do i know if i'm i'm getting a good deal? i tell truecar my zip and which car i want and truecar shows the range of prices people in my area actually paid for the same car so i know if i'm getting a great price. this is how car buying was always meant to be. this is truecar. woman: where are we taking him? i have no clue. we're just tv doctors. if this was a real emergency, i'd be freaking out. we are the tv doctors of america. together with cigna reminding you to go, know, and take control of your health. schedule your annual check-up today.

to go, know, and take control of your health. stay with me, mr. parker. when a critical patient is far from the hospital, the hospital must come to the patient. stay with me, mr. parker. the at&t network is helping first responders connect with medical teams in near real time... stay with me, mr. parker. ...saving time when it matters most. stay with me, mrs. parker. that's the power of and.

welcome back. the panel is here. hugh hewitt, host on the salem radio network and heather mcghee, president of demos. nbc news capitol hill correspondent, kasie hunt, host of kasie d.c. on msnbc, and robert costa, moderator of washington week on pbs. welcome, all. i'm going to give you two takes on john bolton both from conservatives. george will writes this. because john bolton is five things president trump is not,

intelligent, educated, art tick lated and experienced, and because of bolton's west wing proximity to a president responsive to the most recent thought he has heard emanating from cable television or a tv, bolton will soon be the second most dangerous american. david french, a nuclear armed iran is far more dangerous than john bolton. a north korea capable of incinerating american cities is far more dangerous than john bolton. the foreign policy debate is frequently between hawks and doves. in the last administration the doves repeatedly failed. it's time to give a hawk a chance. kasie hunt, john bolton, everybody has an opinion. >> everybody does have an opinion. and i think that this is -- you combine this choice and what you may think about john bolton the man and his history with this president's chaotic management style and you have a lot of people who say let's give john bolton a chance really worried about the impact he may have inside the administration. >> bob, bolton doesn't see eye to eye with the president on so many other issues, including the iraq war, but they do see eye to eye on one, ripping up the iran deal.

>> and talking to white house officials over the last few days, they say bolton will be an ally of mike pompeo, the nominee for the secretary of state. they're going to be a partnership inside of this administration trying to nudge the president forward. it's not so much an ideological case they're making, a personality mesh with the president. he never got along with general mcmaster. general kelly's influence has faded a bit. inside of the west wing. pompeo, bolton, kudlow, the tv personalities, the hard-charging types, they're the ones that the president wants at his side. >> i have a feeling the two of you will have two very different takes on bolton. i know where hugh is, heather. i'll let you go first. >> there are three things that worry me about john bolton. first is he's an unrepentant cheerleader and architect of the iraq war and thinks regime change is better than diplomacy. he thinks that's still the case about iraq which is insane given the facts on the ground and thinks the same of north korea and iran. second, he's untrustworthy. you were talking about mark warner about cambridge analytica. he's currently running a super pac that is one of cambridge

analytica's biggest customers. he ran a think tank in the 1990s that funneled foreign money to republicans. i just think there's more to the story of the web of connection you were talking about that involves john bolton. and then third, i'm going to be honest here and maybe it's the spirit of the young people from yesterday, but when i see men in and around their 70s who did everything they possibly could to avoid going into combat when it was their time banging the war drum, myself, many of my friends who have loved ones who actually had to fight in the iraq war, it's dangerous, it's depressing, and it makes me feel like we don't have people who take seriously -- i mean donald trump loves war. he thinks it's great theater, it's great television. that is something he shares with john bolton and something the american people have no appetite for. >> hugh. >> as a reagan era conservative, i am very happy with the personnel choices made by the

president this week. what bob said about iran and the alliance between secretary of state designate pompeo and incoming security advisor bolton is correct. add to that jim mattis who understands iran to be the central threat in the middle east and has been for the long, long time. >> but mattis is worried about working with bolton. >> they might be. but i think with this talent, pompeo, bolton, kudlow, you have a foreign affairs team to rival jim bakker, howard baker, colin powell and george shultz at the end of the reagan era. i am overjoyed. john bolton has prepared for this his entire life. >> i want to ask you about kelly and mattis, do you think they'll be there in three months. >> based on my reporting, kelly has had a strained relationship with president trump. three months? some say it could be six months to a year. he sees it as duty, he's not there for the politics or because he has this personal rapport with president trump. general mattis, he does have concerns i'm told as well about john bolton. at the same time, the former u.n. ambassador is someone he believes he can work with on a lot of different issues, even if they don't have a close personal relationship. >> i want to bring up the president's tweet this morning

because it seemed to be oddly defensive on, i guess, his legal team. and it's sort of like this is what's on his mind this morning. many lawyers and top law firms want to represent me in the russia case, he says. fame and fortune will never be turned down by a lawyer, though some are conflicted. kasie hunt, what he's referring to on the conflicted is joe digenova, his wife victoria tensing, both of whom they want to have joined the team who have some conflict of interest issues that they're trying to change. it's interesting that i think the president i guess is trying to erase doubt that he's having doubts on digenova, i don't know. >> it seems that way. it seems to be a situation where he wants people on his team who are saying things in public that he agrees with. the clip that you played in the beginning of the show from digenova saying, look, the president is being set up. >> that's what he wants to hear. >> by the fbi and the doj, that's what the president wants to hear. john dowd, the lawyer who was fired this week who we haven't even hardly touched on today, was somebody who was telling him

something he didn't want to hear, which is you should not go in and talk to the special counsel robert mueller, that would be a bad idea. you know, we're seeing across the board all these personnel changes. that's what's happening. if you disagree with the president. >> ted olson, the white shoe attorney, veteran washington lawyer, he said no thanks to president trump this week. that was the most revealing moment. we scooped it at "the washington post." all these lawyers don't want to come in. it's not just because of conflicts, it's because of the political risk. they tell you privately it's the political risk of working with this president. >> it's tough. heather something that erick erickson said that makes me think that he is embracing these battles. what trump really cares about is making america great again through great compelling television in which donald trump is the star, the hero, and the mythical demigod who overcomes impossible odds to achieve glorious victory. and it gets at something that i know came up on hugh's show. almost like the president is embracing the battle. let's go. and maybe he isn't afraid of impeachment. >> he says he loves conflict,

particularly because that makes good television. that worries me as someone who is thinking about the actual foreign policy conflicts of that particular sort of entertainment prediliction of our president. but yeah, he wants -- he thinks conflicts drives us to be talking about him, which it does. he thinks conflicts makes people have to choose sides and he thinks his base will always go to him if he's seen as being under siege. he loves conflict. the american people are sick of it. >> hugh, we had this conversation earlier this week and you're of the mindset, he might embrace it. >> he might love an impeachment process, it might be season three. i want to make one point about the changes this week. the three unhappiest people in the world about the arrival of secretary of state pompeo are new cia director, gina haspel, the bolton appointment, the larry kudlow appointment, and ayatollah khomeini, jim congress unand vladimir putin. our enemies are the enemies of those men and gina haspel. >> we will see on putin, that's for sure. panel, you guys are coming back in a few minutes. we'll talk about stormy daniels

and the gun debate. but when we come back, how our political parties are coming to represent a lot more than just our politics. well, like most of you, i just bought a house. -oh! -very nice. now i'm turning into my dad. i text in full sentences. i refer to every child as chief. this hat was free. what am i supposed to do, not wear it? next thing you know, i'm telling strangers defense wins championships. -well, it does. -right? why is the door open? are we trying to air condition the whole neighborhood? at least i bundled home and auto on an internet website, progressive.com. progressive can't save you from becoming your parents, but we can save you money when you bundle home and auto. i mean, why would i replace this? it's not broken.

we are back, data download time. we know the two parties are different and that they represent two different americas, but data released by pew this week shows us that those changes between the parties are actually accelerating and they're growing even further apart.

in many ways democrats are moving faster than the changes we're seeing as a country while republicans have been slower to keep pace, so there you go, more polarization. between 1997 and 2017, the country has become a lot more diverse with the white population now at 69%. that's a 14-point drop. democrats are outpacing that national average. only 59% of voters who identify with the democratic party are white, while republicans still struggle on the diversity front. 83% of republicans are white. now, on college education, in 2017 a full third of americans had college degrees. that was up eight points from 1997. democrats here too exceed the national average. 39% of democrats are college educated while republicans lag behind with just 28% of republicans being college educated. now, the country is also a bit less religious overall with nearly a quarter of americans saying they don't affiliate with any religion. that's a 16-point jump in sort of secularism in the last 20 years. for democrats, a full third do

not affiliate with a religion while that number is much smaller for republicans, 13%. this country is also getting older with 50% of voters now over the age of 50. here democrats fall behind on this national trend, 42% of their voters are 50 or older. the gop, however, has grown older as the country has aged and they have grown older faster. 57% of republicans are over the age of 50. in short, democrats are mostly heading in the same direction as the country as a whole. that's why democrats are so bullish on the future and republicans are so nervous about their future, even as their hold on older voters keeps them competitive in the now. these differences aren't just about bean counting. it makes finding common ground even harder. it's why compromise in washington is so difficult an only growing more so. back in a moment with this question -- six months from now, which story will matter more to our politics? stormy daniels or yesterday's gun violence demonstrations?

the panel is back to discuss. it was my very first car accident. i called usaa and the first thing they asked was 'are you ok?' they always thank you for your service, which is nice because as a spouse you serve too. we're the hayles and we're usaa members for life. or a c-anything-o. but i've got an idea sir. get domo. it'll connect us to everything that's going on in the company. get it for jean who's always cold. for the sales team, it and the warehouse crew. give us the data we need. in one place, anywhere we need it.

help us do our jobs better. with domo we can run this place together. well that's that's your job i guess. ♪ 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.

back again with the back again with the panel. here's a question, in six months what will have more of an impact on washington, the stormy daniels interview on "60 minutes" or the gun march? i know that seems on one hand an absurd notion but on the other hand it's about what has more impact on this town in the next six months. i grant you the gun march i think is a long-term movement. in the next six months, kasie. >> that's what i would say. i think that the gun march and the degree of engagement from so

many people, such a young age and the emotion we saw on display yesterday, i do think that that is a sea change that is going to catch up with this congress in the longer term. >> i do agree. >> on the stormy daniels' front, i'm not sure we can answer the question yet on that, but clearly this is something that has gotten to the president. he is responding to what she is doing in a way that is completely different than how he was responding to everything else, in a way that suggests that there is something very serious and significant there. i think we'll learn a lot tonight when we hear from her publicly for the first time. but on the flip side, there's a question about does any of it matter anymore? >> i don't know either but jonah goldberg had an interesting thesis about this and this is what he wrote, bob. no one during the republican primaries, no one wanted to attack trump because they knew he'd counterattack viciously an, again, shamelessly. it's much like the old adage about not wrestling with pigs. you'll get dirty and the pig likes it. trump uses the decency of others against him. think marco rubio.

that's what's so fascinating about stormy daniels. what can he say about the star of breast friends 2 and finally legal 7? how can he embarrass her? this is what she has, kryptonite with trump. >> i don't know how he engages here. what's been interesting as a reporter is that he has not engaged in any kind of back and forth with ms. daniels in recent weeks. he has been relatively quiet for a president for whom relative quiet is not usually a tactic. what we're seeing with this gun march, and i walked around with my notepad yesterday. it was regardless of your politics as a reporter, you're there, it was powerful. when i saw all these parents with strollers, young children, teenage students, and i asked them who are you going to vote for, it was not really a partisan event. they were out there marching. i said are you going to vote this fall? they said certainly we will. you felt that something is in the air. yes, the president is moving on gun regulations right now with bump stocks, but if the democrats take over the house or it's a narrow majority for the republicans, there's this mood out there in the country and you saw it on the mall for gun reform. >> i want to play a little bit actually of some of these speeches were unbelievable and we're not going to do them

justice, but here's a quick montage of some of the better ones. >> do you think any change is going to come from this? look around. we are the change. >> fight for your lives before it's someone else's job. >> for far too long these names, these black girls and women have been just numbers. i'm here to say never again for those girls too. >> so when do we say enough is enough? >> you know, heather, i noted earlier this is really a handful of marches that you remember, that our town remembers, the civil rights marches of the '60s, the abortion rights marches of the '80s and '90s, tea party, million man march. i think about those things. this is right up there. >> absolutely. and i think it's shocked many people how significant they were. >> count me as one. >> count you as one. how worldwide they were in places like, you know, south carolina and north dakota. again, something like the women's march, you realize that there are these sort of moral

questions that feel like they're dividing lines and galvanizing points for particularly women, people of color and young people who are saying that there is a corruption at the heart of our politics right now. the fact that money and politics and the way that the nra is able to put their financial interests and their political interests ahead of the lives of children, for young people that is a very, very stark moral issue. and so what you're seeing here is the moral high ground that i think people in washington are not used to having debates at that level and that's where the energy is and that's why when they chant "vote them out," if i were a republican, i'd be very scared. >> hugh, first time where i feel like the gun control movement is prioritizing the issue for voters in ways that the nra for years has prioritized gun rights. >> activism is addictive. they undersold their achievements. the florida law is a significant win that governor scott. i agree with bob, it's a purple

issue. chris coons and pat toomey have put together a bill but far more important than either of those is your facebook conversation. this has also suggested a newstanding committee in the senate. bipartisan support on big tech and data. we have to get our hands on these media companies. it is the future survival of the country. what senator warner said, i think these kids will figure out, they are not in control of their lives with their social media platform. >> you heard it in the warner interview. he was hinting at what's to come. there is talk among republicans and democrats on capitol hill, make them like a utility company. >> a utility. >> at that level of federal regulation. >> and facebook i think is more afraid of democrats even taking back the house or potentially the senate even though -- they are. >> yep. >> there are many people running those companies with a lot of assumptions that silicon valley is full of democrats. but quite frankly they're more likely to get regulated. >> this is populist on the left hand, right. when we come back, our nbc series solutions, gun violence,

a series of voters debate how to reduce gun violence while respecting the second amendment. ♪ applebee's to go. order online and get $10 off $30. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. order online and get $10 off $30. the blade quality you'd expect from gillette at a price you wouldn't. the new gillette3 and gillette5. available now for $7.99. gillette. the best a man can get. tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management.

welcome back. nbc news is kicking off a new continuing series called solutions. we're trying to take a look at the ways communities across the country are tackling diverse policy challenges that are polarized climate can't seem to solve. this week time to yesterday's worldwide demonstrations were looking at gun violence.

on wednesday i traveled to madison wisconsin where there is a group called reach out wisconsin. they've been bringing people together a few years to fogs ter dialogue across the political divide. i spoke with three pro-gun republicans, three democrats, and one independent who served in the military. and we began by discussing whether a ban on assault-style weapons would ever be possible under our constitution. >> the issue with the second amendment is what kind of weapons they were talking about. military weapons? i know some people believe that it's important for ordinary citizens to have whatever weapons the government has because the government may come to get us some day and we want to be able to defend ourselves. so, i can see a little bit of logic to that but i don't really agree with it. >> honestly this is where i get stuck every single time. so, the second amendment, of course, the right to have a militia for the purpose of promoting a free society.

but it follows thereafter with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. >> the arguable comma. >> it's not saying the government shall provide the right to bear arms. it is predating the constitution itself saying it shall not be infringed for these purposes. >> i think ordinary citizens ought not have the right to have nuclear weapons or f-35s or m-1-abrams tanks and the like. if someone is saying citizens ought to be able to rise up against an oppressive government, an ar-15 isn't going to cuss the muster. you need some serious fire power if you're going to overthrow your government. we ended up drawing the line. strikes are kind of arbitrary. >> i don't have a problem. i'm very pro second amendment, but i don't have a problem banning the ar-15 because the bullet travels fast and it does

damage to the organ. it is dangerous because of that. when we did have the ban from 1994 to 2004, yeah, people stopped killing as much with the ar-15, they switched to other guns. so, i mean, as a long-term solution, removing ar-15s or stopping them from being sold might be effective, but short term we need to look at other things. >> someone make the case for owning an ar-15. >> generally speaking an ar-15 is a semiautomatic rifle. mechanically it's no different than a hunting rifle. pull the trigger you get one wul e. >> do you think the ar-15 gets a bad name? >> we tend to lump too many things under that heading as an assault weapon and really it's just a semiautomatic rifle. >> i don't think it's just a semiautomatic rifle. i think hunting rifles are dee signed differently to shoot bullets higher velocity and a farther distance to kill an

animal. an ar-15 is designed to kill people. it is designed to inflict maximum damage at a much closer range and to fire bullets in rapid succession. and i do think that they are different in purpose and in construction. >> if the whole goal here is to find a solution, what are some solutions? >> one thing that we don't know a lot about are the underlying causes, you know, of these shootings. i think that there is not a lot of research that's been done looking at gun violence as a public health epidemic and i think -- >> this new bill is supposed to open the door for more research. >> and i think that is absolutely critical. >> we have enough research. i mean, the problem is -- i'm going to cross the line of race here for a minute. when white kids are killing each other it's a problem and all of a sudden it becomes a national epidemic and a national issue we need to spend $100 million in wisconsin on for safety and security in schools. >> honestly, i think we can all agree that there definitely

needs to be more research as to the underlying reason as to why, why this is happening in the first place because we all can see it is clearly a problem, whether it's the school shooting or individuals. maybe more research, maybe some restrictions whether it be the bullet counts. that's not necessarily regulating the gun itself. >> dottie, what have you learned that's possible and what do you see that is impossible? >> i have three things. first is close the gun show loop hole, you know, make it a little harder for people to get these kinds of weapons. crackdown, you know, better background checks, especially for semi-automatic weapons. and the third one i would say is in terms of mental health, i think we need to focus on reaching people who are isolated. >> i agree that the biggest problem facing our country right now is apathy, that we talk about it when it's in the news and we go about our lives. so we really have to have a

change of heart and actually want to look for solutions. >> what did you take away? >> a few things. i think we'll produce a lot of research that will sit on the shelves and take forever to implement. i think that the greatest chance is probably the stronger background check. it's also confirmed for me that our children are their best lobbyists, that adults aren't good lobbyists for children today, but i do think that the opportunity exists, i mean, we have to be bold. i would love to see a tax just like we tax cigarettes, i would love to see a special tax, a big sur charge put on weapons and that those resources be used to invest in a healthy productive and responsible society. >> look, wisconsin has -- i always like being here because there is something about the citizenry of wisconsin that makes you guys not want to yell at each other. so i really appreciate that. >> you can be a democrat, not for gun control and you can be a republican for it. don't let your party decide. you can see a much longer

version of this discussion on the website meetthepress.com and the nbcdfw app. a programming note, it's about 50 years since the assassination of martin luther king, jr. and tonight on msnbc we're going to be looking back at dr. king and the media changed the way we looked at freedom and ourselves. please be sure to watch hope and fury mlk the movement and the media tonight on msnbc at 9:00 eastern. that's all we have for today. thanks for watching. we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." have you smelled this

new litter? no. nobody has! it's unscented! (vo) new tidy cats free & clean unscented. powerful odor control with activated charcoal. free of dyes. free of fragrances. tidy cats free & clean. when no scents makes sense. your body was made for better things than rheumatiod arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened.

don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of ra, even without methotrexate. ask your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr. thank you so much. thank you! so we're a go? yes! we got a yes! what does that mean for purchasing? purchase. let's do this. got it. book the flights! hai! si! si! ya! ya! ya! what does that mean for us? we can get stuff. what's it mean for shipping? ship the goods. you're a go!

you got the green light. that means go! oh, yeah. start saying yes to your company's best ideas. we're gonna hit our launch date! (scream) thank you! goodbye! we help all types of businesses with money, tools and know-how to get business done. american express open. ♪ it's a dark and stormy night in washington. welcome to "kasie d.c." i'm kasie hunt. we are live every sunday from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. eastern. tonight a certain interview with a certain porn star. we'll talk about stormy daniels' allegations plus the new kids on the block. we'll talk about the new trump foreign policy and legal teams. and a trump oracle warns of even more changes to come. and later, my interview with democratic senator claire mccaskill who has some