flip on his father in law. >> it is just getting good. thank you so much for spending time with us. we love your stories and when you join us. to our panel, thank you so much. that does it for this hour. i'm nicolle wallace, "mtp daily" starts right now with katy tur. always on time. >> you are on time. but you can't leave that cliff hanger and expect me to continue the momentum. that is not fair. >> you figure it out. >> staying with this, i promise it is a good show. nicolle wallace, thank you very much. and if it is monday, is the president misinformed or is he lying? >> tonight the end game of the president's daca blame game. >> the democrats have really let them down. it's a shame and now people are taking advantage of daca. >> plus the red shadow over the white house. will president putin come to washington? and sinclair on script. >> this is extremely dangerous to our democracy --

>> the growing power of one local news broadcasting giant. this is "mtp daily" and it starts right now. ♪ ♪ good evening. i'm katy tur in new york in for chuck todd and welcome to "mtp daily." if your megaphone is big enough, it doesn't matter if what you are saying is 100% correct. amid an easter weekend spent with close advisers in person and on television, president trump decided to turn his focus to his hallmark campaign issue. immigration. but he's not using his i alone can fix it rhetoric. but he spent the last 36 hours placing the own us squarely on congress. and taking shots at democrats on capitol hill. using his personal twitter account, some remarks and some remarks that the white house

easter egg roll this morning, president trump is spreading misinformation to try to kick congress into gear on immigration. and with public subt -- public super-delegate to his side. congress must pass border solution and use nuclear option if necessary to stop the massivin flow of drugs. >> and they tried to beef up the border in february and failed. four times in fact. most promising shot at a compromise was the so-called common sense plan that had lawmakers from lindsey graham to bernie sanders on board. a path to citizenship for 1.8 million dreamers, in exchange for $25 billion for the border wall. it fell six votes shy of the 60 vote threshold in the senate. and a number that may have been higher if not for president trump's threat to veto it.

remember, president trump's preferred bill only got 39 votes in the senate. so that nuclear option floats in the president tweets wouldn't have made any difference. he didn't have all of the republicans in his corner to get to 50. it was still on his mind later in morning at the white house easter egg roll where he told a bunch of kindergartners, yes, kindergartners, that democrats should be blamed for not making a deal on daca. >> the democrats have really let them down. they've really let them down. they had this great opportunity. the democrats have really let them down. it is a shame. and now people are taking advantage of daca and that is a shame. it should have never happened. >> he said democrats let down daca recipients but if you remember, it was president trump himself who wanted to pull the daca program to begin with. in september 2017 he announced he was ending daca by executive order. not to mention democrats made up the bulk of the yes votes in the common sense immigration plan that received the most votes in

the senate. finally let's look at one last tweet from yesterday that may have been spurred by a segment on fox and friends. these big flows of people are already trying to take advantage of daca. they want in on the act. the president is implying here that people are crossing the southern border now to get daca benefits. but that is not how daca works. so qualify for daca, individuals must have lived in the u.s. since 2007. and have been under 31 years old when the program was announced in 2012. only those people would be temporary shielded from deportation. only those people. "the washington post" wrote this morning in the daily 202 blog, donald trump is willfully uninformed or intentionally misleading the people. i would call that a lie. so americans may be able to voice their opinion on that question in november.

let's bring in garrett haake at the white house. garrett, welcome. and thanks for being here. where did this tweet storm from the president on daca came from yesterday on easter morning. >> reporter: the white house thinks they have three audiences here they are trying to reach. they're trying to reach people who might be considering crossing the border illegally and discourage them and trying to reach the mexican government who they would like to see more cooperation with and trying to talk to democrat who they would like to get back at the negotiating table to see if they can't work out a deal on daca sand the wall. the problem with that is democrats put the wall on the table in multiple different points in this process, up to $25 billion worth of funding and the white house could never come around to a compromise position they would accept. the white house said all along that they would only accept that framework the president put out that dealt with four different types of immigration, including things like what the white house called chain migration or family reunification and they couldn't

even get all of the republicans on board. so in terms of a congressional solution, they are stymied and with no real deadline, congress just doesn't work that way to start moving on anything. >> so the president's blaming democrats for this. but if i remember correctly, chuck schumer offered him all of the money for the wall in exchange for daca which was part of an initial plan but the democrats are then saying that that plan didn't go through, that deal didn't go through because the president added on the visa lottery program and family reunification which the president calls chain migration. who is at fault for those deals falling through? is it the democrats or the president, is it republicans? some combination of everybody? >> i think there is probably agreement on the other end of pennsylvania avenue if you were to ask democrats and republicans there to speak candidly, they would probably point to the white house on this. the president has had a hard time getting to yes on this. katie, remember there was a time

when the president said he wanted to see a plan of love. something that would be very generous to the daca recipients and wanted to get some kind of answer or solution. and the white house kept adding on additional things that they wanted. kept building out this wish list. to point that it turned off even fellow republicans that was just too much in there. you had that compromised plan that got 54 votes in the senate. a bipartisan majority or more than 50 votes in the senate and would have gotten more if not for the white house making not just that veto threat but a very aggressive behind-the-scenes effort to peel away republican senators involved in even crafting that piece of legislation essentially scuttling that from happening in the senate. i think most people i talked to on capitol hill, when they are in town, believe if anything is going to get done on daca, it is going to take the president leading and potentially pushing republicans into a deal that they could get to with democrats. democrats have put the wall on the table as i said and i think they're waiting to see if the president can be treated

seriously as a deal maker at this point before they try anything else. >> i am hoping to pars out an answer on this question. the president is talking about daca for a while now. he's been in negotiations about it. is it crazy to believe that he knows the parameters of daca, that he knows that the cut-off was in 2007 and people had to be here before then and that you can't just walk into this country and get daca status today. does he know that? >> reporter: it is impossible to know what is in his mind, katy. think the charitable read on this is that the white house might be trying to muddy the waters here. remember there are a lot -- >> so the white house -- the white house is trying to intentionally mislead and lie to the public? >> reporter: schenn shally. when you get into the conversation with people that are immigration hawks, they apply the term amnesty to anything and you may see a sloppiness that the daca program

con flats to some future amnesty or some program that may or may not exist and you get into this slippery slope argument but that is the most reason i would think of where the president would inflate these thing because as you point out there is no such thing as new daca recipients from people crossing the border today and tomorrow and any time in the future. >> growing up i can't remember telling my parents i was just being sloppy when i as lying. that wouldn't be a defense. that is just me. who knows. >> i wouldn't argue. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. and joining me now is joaquin castro of tax. congressman, thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> you told kasie hunt you did not want to fund the border wall and in exchange for daca was not going to happen. republicans control kog. do you think there is anything at all that you could trade for daca that they will accept? >> well, there were some and

there are some good legislative vehicles where we might be able to find compromise in the house and senate but it seems like every time any bill picks up momentum, the president squelches it and cuts off any momentum and republican support at that point falls apart because they figure that the president is not going to support it so why should they go out on a limb and support a bill. so it is a tough road. but i think we have to stay optimistic and hopeful because you have the futures of 800,000 young people, dreamers and daca recipients, on line. >> are you just waiting for a democratic congress? >> that would help a lot. i think if democrats take back control of the house in 2019, january of 2019 and perhaps the senate, then that will give us more lefrm. >> are you saying the only way to get this done is to have a democratic congress, house and senate. are you confident that is the case, that the president would even sign a bill you put

forward? >> it would give us more leverage and see better bill come there the congress if democrats are in control of the house and senate. but i have to be hopeful it is not the only way it will happen. that we can still continue to work towards some kind of bipartisan agreement because even though there is a court case right now that allows daca recipients to continue to keep daca, we don't know that that is going to continue through november or through january of next year. >> so what can you tell recipients of daca right now will happen in that court case concludes and it is up to congress? what are democrats willing to do to negotiate with this republican congress to make sure that it is solved sooner rather than later. >> well, we're working literally basically day in and day out to try to find an agreement. we're working to try to find whatever combination we can that is workable that can get a majority of support -- >> can you give us a hint -- >> in the house and senate to make sure that we -- >> could you get details as

opposed to general language. >> if you look the at bills out there, there are some viable bills but again the president has to indicate somehow that he's willing to allow one of those bills to go forward. and remember, we're not faced right because because of that court case with the immediate threat of 800,000 people becoming deportable. and i do think that because of that, that also slowed some of the momentum because the march 5th deadline was no longer applicable. >> which bill is viable? >> well you've got the herd aguilar in the house of representatives that dick durbin picked up with lindsey graham in the senate. that is one of the shells. the legislative shells that could be used. and there are also a few others. it just depends on which one you want to start with. >> the president is tweeting about daca and he's saying that those that are trying to come in now are going to be taking advantage of daca, that is not the case or the way that particular bill or plan works.

you need to be here before 2007 in order to be eligible for daca. do you think the president knows this? is he aware of that policy? or is he intentionally misleading the public? >> you know, katy, i don't know the answer to that question. but it is really disturbing when a president wakes up on easter morning and starts tweeting out an argument about daca and fighting with mexico and so forth after watching probably a fox news segment on this caravan of people that are supposedly coming up to the united states. and then to get major facts wrong about daca, you can't just show up here and get daca. you have to have been here for quite sometime. but every time he gets into a political pinch, or it seems like every time the chaos of all of the other issues dies down a little bit, then he goes right back to bashing immigrants and beating up on mexico and building the wall. that is his go-to thing

basically. >> when ch is a better scenario. that he doesn't know the policy or lying about it. >> i don't know that either one is any good. because i worry -- i don't doubt that he could be lying. he lies about a lot of things. so perhaps he is. but it worries me if he doesn't know the policy, what does that say about this president going and meeting with kim jong-un and trying to negotiate north korean denuclearization if he's that careless about basic fact -- facts on major policy. >> did democrats blow the deal by not inserting the daca deal into the omnibus bill. >> i don't think so. it is a missed opportunity. i voted no on the omnibus because it gave up $1.6 billion of border wall funding or fencing and got absolutely nothing for the dreamers or for daca solution. so i don't think we're completely out of leverage, but you are right, they are tl are very few instances between now

and november whereas the minority party in both chambers of congress you have any leverage on this issue or other issues. >> will congress even debate immigration this year? >> i hope so. many of us are pushing as hard as we can to help make that happen. i think honestly if there is a sweet spot, it is perhaps after many of the republican primaries have passed and now you have many folks in the republican party, members of congress who feel like they're safe from any kind of primary challenge and they can now focus on the november general election. that to me sometime after about june or july is probably the sweet spot. >> what do you think is going to happen if donald trump tries to withdraw from nafta? >> well, it would be devastating for a lot of states, including my home state of texas. texas does the most trade of any state in the nation. it would also be harmful to things like the agriculture industry in the united states. and so it would be devastating so a large sector of our economy. >> joaquin castro of texas,

congressman, thank you very much. >> thank you. ahead, we'll break down the drama surrounding the president's latest tweet storm with tonight's panel. we'll be right back. so here's the thing. i'm actually closer to my retirement days than i am my college days. i just want to know, am i gonna be okay? i know people who specialize in "am i going to be okay." i like that. you may need glasses though. schedule a complimentary goal planning session with td ameritrade.

welcome back. we know the 2016 campaign never ended but it feels like time warp if your paying attention to new republican campaign ads. on nbc news our colleagues point out that this election cycle republicans are running against hillary clinton. again. just take a look at some of the recent ads. >> his whole campaign was looking backwards. >> it is hillary who has it backwards. big cities she won are the places flooding our state with heroin. >> the first woman president in the united states of america --

>> you could put half of trump's supporters into what i call the basket of deplorables. >> clinton spokesperson responded with a statement saying in thart the gop can't run on issues so they resort to distraction and diversion pretending it 2016. but the clintons have been a favor gop target for last 25 years but with hillary out of active politics will the sipe-- type of ads continue to rally the conservative base. we'll be back in 60 seconds with more "mtp daily." little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information

has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. back to the monday panel. katie burns, john podhoritz and a contributor and zerlina maxwell from director of progressive programming at sirius xm radio and a msnbc

political analyst. what do you think of those ads? >> i laughed a little too hard about the line of bringing in the heroin to the big cities. if hillary clinton and nancy pelosi are your focus for the 2018 mid-term elections, you're living on another planet. it is barely veiled misogyny in using those two ambitious women as targets for republican candidates because hillary clinton is not even in office so why is she relevant to your campaign running for congress this november. >> why focus on hillary clinton still for 2018? >> we're in a reboot culture. we have reboot of "rose an" and will and grace. i think the story is that the democrats haven't minted any new controversial figures since the 2016 election. a lot of campaign ads are always zeroing in on boogie men and so you have pelosi and hillary

because there is nobody new. >> doesn't that mean they don't have enough issues to run on if you are running against two people -- well one that is not in politics any longer and another who has been a favorite target now for -- gosh, how long, years and years. >> right. and i've talked to republicans who say that nancy pelosi, her name i.d. is so high and if you are a republican a way to remind voters, they say, but you may not like what donald trump is doing and you may not like his personality but do you want to vote for what nancy pelosi represents and republicans argue that people know what her brand is. they know -- they associate her with the democratic party at large which does have a branding issue that -- in certain segments of the country. >> so is it up to democrats to find a new and better controversial figure for the -- >> the wrong question is who is the next leader of the democratic party. i think it is going to be multiple. i think intersectional.

we saw the march for our lives give the democrats a nice template for how to build a movement. you need a cross section and nobody can be in silo and just talking about their one pet issue. you're not just talking about reproductive rights but reproductive justice and tieing it to income inequality and race. if you are trying the issues together, you could build a full coalition of people that could go and win at the polls. but if democrats are just looking for the bright shiny star that is going to save the parry, that will be the wrong direction. >> let's talk about daca. the president in those tweets -- i've been i trying to get to the bottom of this. is somebody prepping him on policy or getting the policy and understands it and lying about it or just not understand the policy. i can't figure out which one is worse. >> so my sense of this is that he wants to get across the idea that he is not responsible for the condition of the daca recipients now. that it was up to democrats and republicans on the hill to come and strike a deal to deal with

the daca -- with the fact that daca was ending and come up with a pathway and they didn't do it and it is not his fault. so when he said at the easter egg roll, i'm sad, they mishandled this, these poor people, he's trying to evade his own people and his administration -- his administration announced that daca would end on -- >> and the bill that he supported got 39 votes. he's talking about getting rid of the 60 vote threshold going for the nuclear option. that would not have gotten in the bill that he wants. >> it didn't get a bill and republicans voted against it because it wasn't conservative enough. that bill gave a pathway to citizenship which people didn't want. and you have to look at broadest context which -- last week the president signed an omnibus bill that he complained didn't do enough to get lhis border wall and that is what he is reminded

about. you haven't gotten the wall, you haven't gotten what you campaigned on as it per pains to immigration. and when you are thinking into a midterm election year where he's trying to rile up or get his base excited or more endeared to him -- >> i understand spin. and i think people give room for spin for the way they interpret any given subject. there is a difference between spin and pedaling falsehoods or lying. tweets about daca were -- fundamentally not true and that's not the first time he didn't get this policy and give them a pass. does he this consistently. where is the collective outrage not from the media but from voters, from republicans on the president's going out and saying something that is not true. that hurts the credibility of not just the president but of everybody involved in this pros process. >> and there is negative consequences when you are

perpetuating lies about policies that affect real people. so daca affected real people right now living in this country and the president doesn't seem to understand the issue or care that he understands the specifics of an issue because the caring piece is important. sometimes he's lying and he knows he's lie and smim sometimes he doesn't understand the policy but it does matter. he doesn't care that he doesn't get it right. he just perpetuated the same lie and he's only half paying attention to steven miller when he's being explained -- >> what is the credibility here -- so little credibility for congress and little credibility for the media, for everybody involved right now. there is very few things that folks can look to and say, i'm always getting the truth from that person or that entity or that institution. there is no trust anywhere. shouldn't there be outrage from the president's own party that he is tearing down their credibility as a whole? >> that ship has sailed. >> but seriously, that might have sailed but shouldn't that

be an issue. >> i don't marine to belittle the seriousness of what you say, but we are beyond that. the whole point about trump and where he is with the public and his party is, it is all about results now. if the economy is good, if the -- consumer satisfaction is up and people say their lives are better than before, he will look okay in his eyes and if things go bad, they will go badly and he doesn't care about credibility. he doesn't care about telling the truth. >> that is so short sided. what about the long-term implications. >> for whom? >> for the government. >> well it is terrible. i'm not disagreeing that it is terrible. i just think that i find it hard to summon the outrage now. i was like outraged a year ago and now i've sort of consumed my outrage in a sense of resignation and despair. i don't know what else to say. >> and collectively people do that. it leads us down a very dangerous path. i understand the ebbs -- the valleys and peaks of outrage

about things like lying. i get that if you are constantly outraged with it you will be exhausted. but if you don't draw a line and say we just can't accept this any longer, the where is the line going to be. >> particularly on the issue of immigration, the president as a candidate and now has always at least exaggerated the fakes. he's talked about people streaming over the border about cross border immigration was down and he depends on that. people getting really angry about the -- the issue of immigration. >> and that was a bipartisan thing where everybody stood up and said no we can't do that any more. >> it has to be bipartisan. >> it can't just be the media. >> but the problem is that 60% of americans understand -- 70% of people thought he was untrustworthy on election day it 2016. his trustworthiness is already shot. >> but he's taking down everybody with him. that is -- his trustworthiness is one thing. it is everybody else's

trustworthiness because once he's gone the institution remains and the lawmakers will stay and if you look and you say, look at the way you behaved during this administration, that is a problem for the future. >> that was a real problem and how do you push back against the mount of lies that donald trump is telling. because every single time you have to be like, this is a falsehood, this is a falsehood and it becomes a million fact checks. but it is still important to do each and -- >> i think the media has a responsiblity to do it but so does everybody else. >> it will cost him a lot -- >> they're wrapping me. i've talked too much. we'll continue this conversation in a few minutes. stay with us. ahead, hundreds of local news anchors reciting the exact same message talking about trust again. the tv promo that is drawing serious controversy. -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.

discover card. i mean, i justis this for real?match, yep. we match all the cash back new cardmembers earn at the end of their first year, automatically. whoo! i got my money! hard to contain yourself, isn't it? uh huh! let it go! whoo! get a dollar-for-dollar match at the end of your first year. only from discover.

ahead, rolling out the red carpet for vladimir putin. we'll have new details on president trump's invitation for a potential white house visit coming up. to jar, to table. and serve with confidence that it's safe. this is a diamond you can follow from mine to finger, and trust it never fell into the wrong hands. ♪ ♪ this is a shipment transferred two hundred times, transparently tracked from port to port. this is the ibm blockchain, built for smarter business. built to run on the ibm cloud.

this is the ibm blockchain, built for smarter business. i had a very minor fender bender tonight! in an unreasonably narrow fast food drive thru lane. but what a powerful life lesson. and don't worry i have everything handled. i already spoke to our allstate agent, and i know that we have accident forgiveness. which is so smart on your guy's part. like fact that they'll just... forgive you... four weeks without the car. okay, yup. good night. with accident forgiveness your rates won't go up just because of an accident. switching to allstate is worth it. are made with smarttrack®igners material to precisely move your teeth to your best smile. see how invisalign® treatment can shape your smile up to 50% faster today at invisalign.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 ♪

welcome back. americans across the country are hearing a similar message when they tune into the local news. because sinclair, the nation's largest owner of tv stations, is requiring anchors to deliver the same exact script warning of one-sided fake news. 15 sinclair owned stations are nbc affiliates which in full

transparency air "meet the press." check out this dead spin video that went viral over the weekend. [ overlapping speakers ] >> sinclair senior vice president of news wrote an employee memo obtained by nbc news that these messages are meant to, quote, reiterate our commitment to reporting facts in a pursuit of truth. and inside a combatting conspiracy theories but does that sound familiar? just ask the president who popularized the term fake news. president trump came to sinclair's defense and tweeted, so funny to watch fake news networks among the most dishonest groups of people i've ever dealt with criticize sinclair broadcasting for being

biased. sinclair is far superior to cnn and even more fake nbc which is a total joke. so what does this mean for news consumers who might not know their local news station is owned by a conservative-leaning outlet. joining me john flick from npr. let's get to the bottom of that question. there are nbc owned stations and owned and operated and then affiliates which means the sin collar stations that you see in these local markets might have an nbc log or or an abc or cbs logo or a fox logo but they are not run by the nbc network ort cbs network, et cetera. >> that is right. sinclair is in business in ironic i will with the major media organizations whose news divisions they are slamming in the statements we're about to talk about. sinclair runs cbs stations and oebs cbs affiliated stations. and so it will have -- a 60 minutes on and a football game

and do the same for nbc programming. "meet the press" on sunday and yet it doesn't have control over your programs and nbc doesn't have control over what sinclair does in the other hours. >> but it clearly has control or some degree of control over what is broadcast on the local news stations. this was a mandated script that came from top down. what is the goal here? what are they trying to get at by having anchors display this warning about fake news? >> well, there are two motivations and i think both are in play. one of which is as scott livingston from sinclair broadcast said, we're offering this as a point of differentiation and proud of the rigorous programming here and isn't this wonderful and they're doing it at a time they are seeking to acquire several other stations and trying to say they are a place of responsible journalism when everybody is worried about fake news. and it is like a dog whistle and

setting off a cannonball and for those who share his concern about fake news and those that want to blast the media for the coverage, you will find a safe home in us. and i think that that is -- a clear call they have built a very familiar and friendly relationship with trump camp and i think they're seeking to keep it up. >> i used to work in local news. a lot of reporters work in local news and it is a privilege because you get to know the community and how they react and heal from stories and people watch. they associate their local news anchors with the station, they gain the trust of their viewers. it is important in our democracy, what happens if you were to see people they trust feeding them information that maybe they can't trust. >> let's talk about a couple of things. sinclair owns and operates the station and it has the right to tell people what so say. if they are putting it in the words of the anchors and trading

on the trust just as you talk about, the trust that local viewers have in their local news anchors, they've come to know over the years, they're trading on that trist to get across their own corporate message but not presenting it as a corporate message. in the clips people say i've come to believe, i'm concerned or we are concerned as though it is a local concern. it is not. it is a concern based in the baltimore county headquarters of sinclair broadcast. so that is something to -- >> and they could tell them what to say? as a journalist, i would assume you don't listen to a corporate overlord. if somebody -- if the top of nbc said i want to you read this script exactly as it is, i would assume-i would hope that i would say i don't agree with this or this is not true or up to our journalistic standards. >> and katy tur might have the standing to say no. that a local news anchor might not in topeka or somewhere else and there runds had -- there ar of scattered stations. i've covered them for a long time, i was the media reporter

for the baltimore sun. so after the 9/11 attacks, sinclair mandated all stations, all news anchors had to read aloud a statement of support for george w. bush and at many stations this caused concern. they said we support george w. bush in his response at their flagship station in baltimore several said we can't read this. and they negotiated the right to say, station management wanted to express this and distancing them. ownership can compel things to say what they want or people can walk away but they negotiated but stations made the statement. the second instance, 2004, then the bureau washington chief said he had grave reservations about the coverage of the john kerry and he thought it wreaked of bias. he was fired the day my story appeared and both of us expected him to be fired. but we didn't know sinclair would go after him and force him to give back his unemployment

compensation to the state of maryland for having done that. they said you don't deserve to get unemployment compensation, they enforced his contract to the letter. that is the kind of reach sinclair showed it will have if you cross them. it is a message to employees, do what we say, and say what we say. >> the fourth estate is part of our democracy. it is part of what makes our democracy function. it is -- has been held up for hundreds of years as one of the reasons why we exist and we have been successful, we have an outlet where we can push back on our leaders and hold them accountable, be truthful when our leaders are not being truthful. what is the resource when we're seeing more and more news outlets become corporate owned entities. >> you're seeing a son sol da-- consolidation of ownership. trump said he's concerned and his justice department is blocking or seeking to block the takeover of time warner and cnn by at&t concerned about too much

consolidation. right now the -- the acquisition of tv stations, over 30 of them, has been proposed by sinclair so they could get even more of the share, reach even more of the country and anti-trust lawyers are looking at that at the department of justice. but trump's own pick at the head of the federal communications division is under agency by the inspector general for his connell tacts and relationship with sinclair over the question of his easement of rules making it easier for them to do this -- >> is it better to just go to a public funding system? >> here at npr we are very appreciative of our member stations and our listeners and the sources. >> david, thank you very much for joining us. we appreciate it. ahead, here comes president putin. president trump has reportedly invited the russian president to the white house. that's next. liberty mutual stood with me when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night. hold on dad... liberty did what? yeah, liberty mutual 24-hour roadside assistance

helped him to fix his flat so he could get home safely. my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. don't worry - i know what a lug wrench is, dad. is this a lug wrench? maybe? you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. my time is thin, but so is my lawn. now there's new scotts thick 'r lawn 3-in-1 solution. with a soil improver! seed! and fertilizer to feed! ♪ ♪ now yard time is our time. this is a scotts yard.

now yard time is our time. thisat red lobsterest. with exciting new dishes like dueling lobster tails and lobster truffle mac & cheese. classics like lobster lover's dream are here too. so enjoy these 10 lobsterlicious dishes while you can because lobsterfest won't last. welcome back. vladimir putin may soon be at a white house near you. sarah huckabee-sanders said a meeting between trump and vladimir putin is in the works. and 1600 pennsylvania avenue is one possible venue. sanders said nothing is set in stone, one putin official told the a.p. that president trump invited putin to the white house out right during their phone call last month. the kremlin, though, the spokesperson for the kremlin contradicted that report. no date is set for a potential

by lateral and they are not scheduled to see each other face-to-face until the november g-20 in argentina. we'll be right back. this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪ before discovering nexium 24hr to treat her frequent heartburn, claire could only imagine enjoying chocolate cake. now she can have her cake and eat it too. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn?

time now for "the lid." the panel is back. let's start just by doing the lightning round on sinclair broadcasting. does it concern you, john, to see the am ago gamation or the mash up of those local news anchors reading that same script. ml. >> it is very cheesy and looks bad. as my colleague said, it looks like a -- they look like they are in a hostage video having said that, newspapers, newspaper chains, syndicate editorials have been doing it for 50, 60, 70, a hundred years. >> should there be a editorial board tor sinclair broadcasting.

>> that is not my business. they could do whatever they want. should they be forcing people to say i feel dah dah when they don't feel la that way. there are worse things going on in the world than that. >> the things going on than this in the world. >> the president often conflates the editorial boards newspapers and reporting. he conflate jeff bezos owning amazon as the "washington post." but it's not true. so it's part of this. also it's, local news is watched, and that's where a lot of people get their information. so it does, i think it's problematic. >> you bring up a big point. newspapers have editorials, but they come interest the editorial page, the editorial board. you're not forcing maggie haberman to say she believes something that she doesn't believe. and the "new york times" isn't telling her to write a certain

sentence. is that a way to fix this? does that make a little more palatable? >> yeah, like boris epstein. that's frightening. he disappeared and became a tv host. i think the danger here is that we're not working off the same set of facts. it's fine to be conservative media and labor riberal media. if there is information that the public needs to know, right, they can't trust the news. there are going to be moments, natural disasters, a crisis in the country, a terrorist attack, where we're going to have to be able to turn on the tv, they'll have to tell us factual information we can trust to keep our families safe. that's the danger. and that's where it can go and become a problem. >> the specific editorial, i think is totally

uncontroversial. people on the left and the right think there is a problem with false news, means bad stories, you need to be careful. i don't think that it matters that the material everyone was watching in that incredible array of everybody saying the same thing wasn't that. it would matter if it really gets bad if people simply start publishing or, you know, relaying false news stories on local newscasts because they're ordered to by the central company which has regulatory issues in front of the trump administration and the fcc. >> i want to talk about the other big story getting a lot of coverage, and that's the school protest. what we saw in west virginia is being replicated in states like oklahoma and arizona. john was saying as we were coming out of commercial break that he doesn't think teachers should ever walk off the job. is there a way for them to do this and maintain leverage if

they were to be able to do it in the summer? what's really interesting to me is the fact that that is happening in red states across the country. and as we saw in west virginia, they're getting results, so that tends to spur more of this. and i think, you know, it's something that the whole point of the protest is to get attention for it. and they certainly are. >> there's a real funding problem. >> absolutely. >> for local schools. what about the idea, what happened if all schoolteachers, public schoolteachers in the country walked out on the same day? >> it would be an amazingly powerful protest. because it would put not just attention but energy behind that particular issue. this is the result of many years of state budget cuts, and that has been sort of the republican line, fiscal conservatism and cutting budgets, and this is the consequences of that. what we're seeing now are

teachers that have -- i saw you speak to teacher earlier today, she has 30 desks and 40 students, and it's first come first serve, which is something i could not imagine happening in a public school in this country. but that's the reality. teachers are underpaid and have to use their own money for school supplies and textbooks and supplies that their students need. that is unacceptable. you should be able to get a quality education, no matter what city you're born into. >> just for the sake of clarity, public, there are a lot of litigation about this from the '40s onward. public sector workers are not, who are doing critical jobs, are not permitted legally to strike. that is just the fact of it. you are not to walk out on a public sector job. >> how do you have -- >> you have unions and contracts that come nun aup in all that.

i think it's bad. i think it sets an incredibly bad precedent. >> you think schools are funded enough? >> i'm not familiar with the funding programs in west virginia and oklahoma. and i'm sure they could be funded better, but that's not the issue. the issue is one of simple legality. >> thank you. appreciate it. ahead, reflecting on the life of a fighter for freedom. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job

from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase. 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. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, little things can be a big deal.

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

if it's possible for one person to be the face of a movement, the face of a struggle, wynny mandela may be that person. but winnie mandela was a leader in her own right in the battle against apartheid. she took up the cause in her husband's stead, rallying africans in the fight for equality. winnie mandela was imprisoned too. in 1969, she spent more than a year in solitary confinement. >> she was convicted of kidnapping and assault. a few years later in 1996, she was ousted from her husband's cabinet over corruption allegations. the couple divorced soon after. she was an imperfect messenger.

obit a obituaries call her ruthless. she believed in her people, saying i am the product of the masses and my country and the product of my enemy. winnie mandela, a furious, passionate and unrepentant fighter was 81. that's all for mtp daily, the bite starts now with my friend, stephanie ruhle. >> i'm stephanie ruhle in for my friend ari melber. is president trump rolling out the red carpet for vladimir putin. trump suggested a meeting with putin at the white house when they spoke by phone last month. the white house seeming to confirm the report, saying he and putin discussed having a meeting in the not so distant future. and it could be at a number of