our other guests, gary long, and mr. miller who was on for me. that does it for me this afternoon. i'll see you tomorrow with stephanie ruhle. "deadline white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. 1:00 p.m. in los angeles where we are so lucky to be spending the day with our friends in the nbc news l.a. bureau. we are continuing to follow that breaking news out of toronto with a van plowed into people in a busy intersection there. a suspect has been taken into custody. we are expecting a news conference this hour. when that starts we'll take you to it. in the meantime, the trump white house and donald trump's casual cruelty on full display this weekend in what must be a record-breaking spasm of highly agitated tweets targeting the special counsel investigation into his ties with russia. chuck todd's line of questioning about north korea. jeff sessions, a.k.a. mr. magoo. james comey's memos and a host

of other targets big and small. but by far the most pointed attacks were for "the new york times" maggie haberman who report reported on trump and cohen. for years, mr. trump treated mr. cohen poorly with gratuitous insults, dismissive statements and at least twice threats of being fired. that's according to interviews with half a dozen people. the times quotes presidential ally roger stone on the record saying, quote, donald goes out of his way to treat him like garbage. and former trump aide sam nunberg also on the record as saying, quote, the softer side of the president genuinely has an affects for michael. however, the president has also taken michael for granted. whenever anyone complains to me about trump's screwing them over, my reflexive response is that person has nothing to complain about compared to michael. it's the kind of nuanced and well sourced reporting that earned haberman and her colleagues a pulitzer last week.

that didn't stop the disparaging tweets. he wrote, quote, "the new york times" and the third rate report reporter named maggie haberman known as a crooked h flunky who i don't speak to, hoping he will flip. they use nonexistent sources. a fine person with a wonderful family, most people will flip if the government lifts them out of trouble even if it means lying to or making up stories. sorry, i don't see michael doing that. the president also tweeting about, you guessed it, pardons. in one of his 32 weekend tweets. writing about former heavy weight boxing champion, quote, i am considering a full pardon. here with sarah huckabee sanders on the topic of cohen and pardons. >> it was noticed by some you didn't close the door one way or the other on the president pardoning michael cohen. what is your -- what's your read on that right mao? >> it's hard to close a door on

something that hasn't taken place. i don't like to discuss or comment on hypothetical situations that may or may not ever happen. >> to help us break down today's developments on cohen, mueller, sessions and all things that make donald tweet, some of our favorite reporters and friends. joining us from washington post, white house reporter ashley parker. also matt miller, former chief spokesman for the justice department. and with me here on set, harry lit man, former deputy assistant attorney general and former u.s. attorney. ashley parker, let me just start with you, because even though the post and the times are competitive news organizations, you were all sort of in the trenches together reporting stories with 6, 10, sometimes 31 sources that the president comes out and calls fake news. this attack this weekend rose to a new level of animosity and sort of -- clearly the reporting struck a nerve with him based on the way he went after maggie haberman. >> it certainly did. i should say first it was, it

was a fantastic story. it was one we wish we had done. you know, it was spot on. as we've discussed on the show before, when the president tweets fake news or when he goes after a news organization or a story or a reporter by name, it often doesn't mean that the story was, in fact, fake. what it means, in fact, is quite the opposite. it's that the story really hit on a truth or captured something that was going on inside the white house and that in a certain moment or in this case a real clear dynamic between the president and his personal attorney and he's upset about it. and this is how he tries to discredit it. he does go after individual reporters sometimes. maggie is one of the ones he's known for a while and for whatever reason he frequently mentions her by name. but just to give you one example of what's not true and how he hurt his credibility in that tweet, he said, you know, i don't even know her. i have nothing to do with her. and as the times was quick to mention, maggie haberman has

interviewed the president twice in the oval office and spoken with him three times on the phone. so, even that tweet attacking her story was full of easily verifiable inaccuracies. >> and the post had a pretty remarkable body of reporting on cohen this weekend, too. i'm going to read a little bit from your colleague's story. michael cohen once a pinnacle of trump's world now poses threat to it. your colleagues report, some in trump's inner circle worried about blow back from cohen's associations and unorthodox tactics in fixing the new york developer's problems. trump associate said, among those opposed the associate said were trump's daughter ivanka and son-in-law jared. either irony is dead or it was the fact the trump children, jared who is now deeply enmeshed in the investigation into potential collusion with russia, didn't think cohen made the cut ethically. is that what your colleagues report? >> that is what we're reporting.

and what i have heard is while there are a number of people who sort of were familiar with cohen, my understanding was particularly with jared, he sort of liked cohen personally or had no personal animosity against him, but kind of looked at him and said, which is what a lot of people on the campaign said, this is a kind of shady guy. i don't know quite what he's up to. i can't imagine it's anything good. that is probably not the best fit in our west wing right now. but as you pointed out, there were a lot of people who ended up in the white house who, for a variety of reasons, are now out, are now being looked at, probably shouldn't have ended up there in the first place. in that sense cohen might have fit in. >> to your point, ashley, we made a short list off the top of our head of the administration officials who are facing ethics scrutiny, includes general michael flynn who lied to the fbi and has pleaded guilty. rob porter, david shulkin, scott pruitt, ryan zinky, mcentee.

the process, we shouldn't gloss over the significance, i've never before heard a president talk about pardons so much. and the pardon process, maybe you can help our viewers understand this. it goes through the justice department and the white house counsel's office. and donald trump, in deciding to pardon scooter libby, would have had to involve his white house counsel don mcgahn who we know spent two days with bob mueller investigators. if donald trump said anything about the purpose of that pardon having anything to do with telegraphing, that he was down with pardons, don mcgahn would have to testify to that, wouldn't he? >> yes, that is exactly right. typically way the pardon process works, people who want to seek either a pardon or commutation of their sentence apply to the justice department. the justice department through the office of the deputy attorney general reviews the pardon, comes up with the pros and cons and makes a recommendation to the president through the white house counsel's office. we know that the president short circuited that process in the

scooter libby pardon just as he did in the joe arpaio pardon. that is his right under the constitution. that is his inherent authority to offer those pardons on his own without consulting anyone. but presidents who want to be careful in the past have followed this procedure of going through the justice department. and the libby pardon is not -- when you mention the libby pardon, you're right that don mcgahn would have to testify about it, but that's not the only area of pardons in which don mcgahn or others in the white house may have to talk to the special counsel. we know that the president or i shouldn't say we know the president instructed his attorney. we know that his attorney john dowd reached out to mike flynn and paul manafort through their counsel and dangled the idea of pardons in front of both of those people. if anyone in the president's inner circle knew about those conversations and knew that he was offering those pardons or raising the prospect of those pardons, to try to keep them from testifying, that could be another potential act of obstruction of justice by the president. >> so, harry, we've got the scooter libby pardon. we've got what matt miller just

referenced. the dangling of pardon in front of former attorney john dowd and we have the president tweeting about pardons. if you're the mueller team and you're investigating potential obstruction of justice, do you have a team looking at pardons? >> not only do i, but mueller does. the indications are he's going to be giving a report that will have four different counts, as it were, of possible obstruction. there is the air force one incident. the firing of comey. there's the pressure on sessions. and the fourth is this dangling of pardons. as matt says, although he's got a lot of power to use pardon, it's a different thing to sort of dangle them quietly on the qt saying just keep quite skpet there will be a pardon at the end of the day. that subverts the whole notion of pardons. it doesn't give rise to the one check we have, which is the sort of public airing of them. and that potentially could be obstruction and mueller is taking it as one of his subject matters. >> okay. and speaking of mueller, i think

we've been joined by "the new york times" white house reporter peter baker. are you with us now, peter? >> i'm with you. sorry, yes. >> there you are. that's okay, no apologies. this is like a reception. you come when you can, you leave when you have to, take your calls. let me play you white house director of legislative affairs on the topic of bob mueller and the scope of his investigation from "meet the press" yesterday. we'll talk about it on the other side. >> i think that we all have frustration we believe the scope has gone well beyond what was intended to be investigations into meddling in the election. and i think that the house, the senate have had their own investigations, the house has completed those. we're anxious for the senate to complete his. when is he going to fire mueller, when is he going to fire rosenstein? the president has no intention of firing these individuals. >> as far as you know. definitively he's not. this investigation going to run its course period, end of story.

>> you know how far off the investigation is going to veer. >> well, i mean, mark sort of there on the heels of a presidential tweet questioning the entire premise for the special investigation, the president citing kim strauss of the "wall street journal" tweeted after reviewing the dumb comey memos you have to ask what what was the purpose of the special counsel. there is no there, there. chuck todd questioning the president's head of legislative affairs whether the president plans to fire bob mueller who he attacks regularly in the post-cohen era is a legitimate line of questioning. are you picking up any sense that the president has been pushed off the ledge from talking about or thinking about dismissing everyone with a finger in the russia probe? >> no, i don't think that is going to happen. i think that he's going to say what he wants to say about this probe. he's going to say whatever he feels like saying it. you know, he has been at least for the moment seemingly persuaded not to fire bob mueller, but he has as we just said tried it or suggested it or

raised the idea on multiple occasions before. so, it's not an unreasonable question to ask and that is something that -- the fact that it's even possible, the fact that it's even held out there is itself a factor in this investigation. it was not held out there under a lot of other investigations we've seen in the last 10 or 15 years. nobody thought george w. bush was going to fire fitzgerald. nobody thought clint was going to ask janet reno to fire or try to seek the firing of ken starr who had a different legal structure. it is a very real possibility here and that is why that question will continue to be asked. that is why aides of the president will use words, "as far as i know." >> matt miller, tie these two together. you sort of laid out how pardons may be examined and investigated by mueller's probe. does the constant harping on fbi and justice department officials from the man investigating him, bob mueller, up the food chain to rod rosenstein and jeff sessions, does that get to any

of the president's state of mind about being investigated for potential obstruction of justice and collusion with russia? >> i think so, because i think what bob mueller will be looking at in the obstruction piece of this investigation will be all of the president's long series of troubling interactions with the justice department. they go back all the way to his dinner with jim comey where he asked for loyalty to his meeting with him where he asked him to back off of mike flynn, all the way up to instructing his white house counsel on two separate occasion s to fire bob mueller and the white house counsel to be mcgahn basically being insubordinate and not carrying out the order. what mueller is going to look at is two things. one, what was the president trying to do what was he trying to achieve in these series of interactions, what was his state of mind. to the extent he told anyone in the white house or said out loud or said to friends outside the white house, look, i really need to lean on jeff session s to get him to stop this investigation because i'm troubled where it might go. if rod rosenstein doesn't stop

this investigation i'm going to fire him. if he said that about jim comey, that would establish the corrupt intent you need to show for criminal act of obstruction of justice. i think while we're not looking at indictment scenario with the president, that is a compelling evidence you want to see when mueller ends this thing and supposedly submits something to rod rosenstein that might make its way to congress. >> i want to hear from harry on this, but i have to let peter and ashley jump back in. i think both of your papers have detailed what matt miller just, just, just described. i think, peter, the times has reported on extensively on the president's belief that his guys at the justice department should be protecting him, that he nicknamed jeff sessions mr. magoo many, many months ago as one of the worst-kept secrets in washington. your thoughts about where any sort of examination of the question of his desire to have government officials protect him. that seems to have been asked and answered. >> well, i remember, of course,

speaking with the president about this last summer when he first went off on jeff sessions. in our interview he was upset jeff sessions recused himself from the russia investigation. he wanted somebody in charge he trusted. he spoke ill of rosenstein in the interview. it was a problem somebody he didn't trust, who didn't necessarily command loyalty wasn't charged with the russia investigation. now, what the white house will tell you is jim comey was hardly, you know, intimidated by the president when he talked to him. his own memos don't seem to indicate that he backed off any investigation as a result of the president's conversations with him. so, it's going to be a matter of some interpretation to see what further evidence there is. but you're right, there is no question he believes that the control of the russia investigation should lie within the people who are loyal to him. >> and, ashley, let me bring it back to you with the same question. it seems like an established fact that the president has made it abundantly clear through his

white house counsel who threatened to resign over the president's desire to fire bob mueller and i think it was reince priebus who threatened to resign over the president's wish to fire jeff sessions. i mean, we now know that the president wants people who adhere to the rule of trump and trumpism, not the rule of law running the justice department. >> that is exactly right. and some of that comes with sort of a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the government works and the way the justice department works. the president has basically said publicly and privately, you know, i want a roy cohn. i want a bobby kennedy. i want somebody who is loyal to me. he came up running a family business. he was a chief executive of a large, but at its core, a family business where one of the key traits and assets he could choose was loyalty. and he could fire people who weren't loyal and he could hire people based solely on the fact they were loyal. and you can question sort of the

logic behind that, but that was absolutely his right to demand or do. he is now the president, and these are independent agencies and they are not supposed to be loyal solely to the president, especially if he is telling them to do something that they are uncomfortable with or may be breaking the law potentially. >> so, harry, ashley has landed on what i months ago got in trouble for calling the stupidity defense. the white house constantly saying he doesn't understand this is the way it's supposed to be. don't you think 14 months in someone should have briefed him? >> yes, that is a whole 'nother issue about who is telling him what the law is. as you say, these are all established facts. as are the narrative that comey produced in his memos and there is a none one over the weekend, by the way. the president wanting to fire lisa page, fbi agent, as soon as he hears she's a witness against him. the facts will not be in question. as matt says, it is all going to be about corrupt intent -- >> are these facts used against him, witness tampering --

>> textbook pattern. the on the defense he could have, and i don't mean to pooh pooh it. i didn't quite realize what it meant. i didn't have corrupt intent. >> stupidity defense. >> something like that. you don't have to prove -- you don't have to have words out of his mouth, we're doing this to shutdown the russia probe. you can infer it. he's given plenty of ammunition to infer it. but the main point is he's really not going to be arguing about what happened, but just what was in his mind. >> all right. when we come back, sessions and rosenstein, the new they will ma and louise. if he goes, i go, too, which may be exactly what donald trump wants. also ahead, the trump whisperer, the french president lands on fox news to plead his case to an audience of one. but will it work? and the breaking news out of toronto where a van struck several pedestrians, an update on that story when we come back.

ahh... summer is coming. and it's time to get outside. pack in even more adventure with audible. with the largest selection of audiobooks. audible lets you follow plot twists off the beaten track. or discover magic when you hit the open road. with the free audible app, your stories go wherever you do. and for just $14.95 a month you get a credit, good for any audiobook. if you don't like it exchange it any time. no questions asked. you can also roll your credits to the next month if you don't use them.

so take audible with you this summer... on the road... on the trail... or to the beach. start a 30-day trial and your first audiobook is free. cancel anytime, and your books are yours to keep forever. no matter where you go this summer make it better with audible. text summer17 to 500500 to start listening today.

we use our phones the same way these days. so why do we pay to have a phone connected when we're already paying for internet? shouldn't it all just be one thing? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you can get up to 5 lines of talk and text included at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. see how you could save $400 or more a year. and get $200 back when you sign up for xfinity mobile and add a new line of unlimited. xfinity mobile. it's a new kind of network designed to save you money. click, call or visit an xfinity store today.

play [music plays]his". when everything's connected, it's simple. easy. awesome. we're covering the breaking news this afternoon from toronto where police say a van plowed into multiple people. the extent of the injuries still unknown. and a suspect has been taken into custody. nbc's rehema ellis is following it and joins us now. >> reporter: according to authorities, there may be up to ten people who were killed as a result of this van jumping the sidewalk and running into pedestrians who were on that sidewalk. it was a beautiful sunny day in toronto and it is all marred by this incident. authorities say they have a suspect in custody. we are expecting a news

conference in just a short while from now. hopefully police will share with us some details as to why this incident happened. according to some eyewitnesses on the scene, they say it appeared as though the van was deliberately attempting to hit pedestrians and that is lead something authorities to believe this might be a deliberate act of terrorism in that city. and, again, we hope to find out more soon. up to ten people may have been killed and several others injured as a result of this van, a rented vehicle, jumping the sidewalk and plowing down pedestrians around 1:30 this afternoon in toronto. nicolle? >> rehema, as you say, we have seen incidents like this in this country and around the world. as soon as you have any more information or as soon as any motive behind this is confirmed, please jump back in front of the camera and bring it to us. we're grateful to you for the update. >> we absolutely will, nicolle. >> okay. back to the white house and a

stunning headline over the weekend, from the washington post, right in the middle of the president's twitter meltdown. the post reporting, sessions told the white house that he would resign if trump fired rosenstein. trump quickly responded on twitter, of course, but not to the big headline. instead he seized on this little detail from the article that trump has at times referred to mr. sessions as mr. magoo and rod rosenstein at peepers. an official reply, the washington post said i refer to mr. sessions as mr. magoo and rod rosenstein saz mr. peepers. i don't know these characters. just more fake and disgusting news to create ill will. peter, ashley, matt and harry are still with us. i am one of those b-rate reporters he attacked and i heard that he calls sessions and rosenstein mr. magoo and m

mr. peepers. this is the worst kept insult in the entire pooh-pooh platter of presidential insults, ashley. >> yes, it's true. i have to say i heard m mr. peepers more recently, but mr. magoo he had been calling the attorney general that for quite sometime. that goes back to the point when the president says something is not true, it often means that it is true, he just wishes that it hadn't been reported in the media. >> and, peter baker, this reminds me of someone says you're, you know, corrupt and you're smiling about it and you don't respond to the accusation you're corrupt. you respond and attack back to the description of your smiling face. the whopper in the story was that sessions has made sort of a suicide pact with rosenstein and that if rosenstein is overseeing the mueller probe quits, sessions is going to over principle. the president was silent on that whopper and simply weighed in on

1950s cartoon characters. >> yeah, that's right. what a spectacle that would be if, in fact, that happened. if the president were to fire the deputy attorney general and the attorney general then quit in protest in solidarity with him. you'd have the makings of another saturday night massacre from 1973 when richard nixon sought to fire the special prosecutor in the watergate probe and the attorney general and deputy attorney general in that case refused to do it and were pushed out as a result. it has such an echo of watergate that that's the obvious thinking that sessions has here, that perhaps the president wouldn't want to risk that kind of political blow back if both of them were to go at the same time. now, we've seen repeatedly this president doesn't seem to, you know, be intimidated by the sorts of constraints that applied on all politicians. he doesn't shy away from things politicians say are risky. doesn't mean he wouldn't do it. that was clearly the intent of that story coming out or that

message being put out by the attorney general or his friends. >> matt miller, i'm constantly reminded not to overthink trump's strategery, if you will. sessions and the solicitor general have formed sort of a d.o.j. bond. it can't exist in a vakument. if they're bonded together, they're against him. can you speak about the reality of how the justice department functions and how it's supposed to work like that with those men working together and being independent from the white house, particularly one they are investigating? >> it goes back to the point peter raised about the saturday night massacre and the idea officials at the justice department don't want to be seen as toties for the president. they don't want to be seen as carrying out inappropriate orders and they highly value the department's independence. there is something in the water at d.o.j. you don't have to be there very long to hear about the saturday night massacre and it's always held up as the

singular event in the department's history where senior officials decided that they would not cover up wrongdoing for the president and they were willing to resign their jobs over carrying out such an order. and so i would say i'm surprised jeff sessions endorses that line of thinking because he's not really been a profile in courage standing up to the president. he's been recused but that was because he didn't have a choice but to recuse himself from the russia investigation. other than that, he's kind of given the president what he wants in some smaller things. even the way he talks about thement has been really out of line for how previous attorneys general have talked about the relationships with the commander in chief. but i do think what you sigh is that even for jeff sessions, firing rod rosenstein because he's trying to end the russia investigation would be a bridge too far, would be a sure sign that the president was trying to thwart the rule of law. and even for jeff sessions that seems to be something he wouldn't be able to stand for. >> now, harry, we in the media tend to make this more black and white than it is. we hold out, as matt saying,

sessions hasn't been a hero, but he has this heroic act, the post reporting his message to the white house which has not been previously reported underscores the political fire storm trump would invite to remove the deputy attorney general and trump has railed against sessions at times. the resignation of the attorney general would likely incite other departures and create a moment of profound crisis for the white house. you have also got -- you've got this one moment that we'll hold up and call it profile in courage. but it's filled and it's littered with thousands of others, like rod rosenstein turning over the comey memos and sharing other things with the noisy and cynical gang of far-right wing conservatives in the house, jim jordan and mark meadows who was the second special counsel appointed. can you bring into sharper relief the muddled picture coming out of the d.o.j. right now? >> look, it is a mixed picture, but i think this is a really important and hardening

development. sessions obviously decided to set his sail by d.o.j. culture and policies. he wants to be -- remember, this is the pinnacle of his career. he wants to be remembered as a d.o.j. guy, say like john ash croft, and not a toty, say al gonzalez. this is really i think showing that he's been around there. he's seen the basic honor and integrity of the people who are there and he's sort of set his sail by that and not by what, after all, will be the temporary trump presidency. so, i think it matters a lot. you're certainly right that they've been playing ball i think a little too much with nunes and company on the hill. but no doubt, rosenstein is a d.o.j. guy. sessions hasn't really been. now i think he's saying he is, and i think it's a big development. >> another old school d.o.j. guy back in the scene, rudy giuliani, ashley parker, getting in, he's going to wrap up the

mueller probe in 14 days according to sources, a report so ridiculous even fox news lampooned it saying mueller's team said to be amused as giuliani pledges to end russia probe. if you can see the by lines, you'll really get the joke there. ashley? >> so, there's a lot of people even in the president's orbit who sort of question this decision. i was talking to someone today who said, look, i think giuliani is a smart guy, but he hasn't actually practiced law in forever. he's sort of not the person you want. but in explaining the president's thinking, which here and always is the only thing that matters, the president wanted someone who was a big name. he was very frustrated by all these news reports about all these top white collar lawyers turning him down. he wanted someone who he thought had credibility and there was a sense if he could get giuliani to come on, he might be able to hire some of the other lawyers who can actually do the work that is needed to be done.

he wanted kind of a familiar face. he likes that giuliani has been out defending him on tv. he believes there is some value in having sort of an attack dog surrogate. so, there may be some value that giuliani can serve in making the president comfortable or in arguing the case, you know, in the media. but that purpose is not the purpose that the president has stated. that this is someone who can go in and talk tough to mueller and his team and wrap this up in a week or two. that is not our understanding how this is going to go. >> matt miller, that wouldn't be possible under any circumstances. the mueller investigation is a counter intelligence investigation. it takes a criminal investigation -- it takes up two floors. i've heard the actual hope is rudy can talk some sense into the president and after he has a meeting with mueller, he may come back and say, all right, here's the deal.

he may be able to talk him back into an interview with mueller. he may be able to reason with the president a little bit and that the real negotiation is in sending rudy into the mueller operation. it's sending rudy into the oval office. >> that would make much more sense because all of the reasons that ashley just described why the president might have hired him, they're kind of bananas. it doesn't make sense that you would hire someone who hasn't practiced real criminal law since the '80s to go in and negotiate an end to this thing just because he happened to know bob mueller from the aftermath of 9/11. that is not how criminal high stakes investigations work. but if he could come into the white house, negotiate an interview for the president so you don't have an unprecedented act of a president of the united states who swore an oath to the constitution to execute all laws declining to cooperate with an investigation, convince the president to come and sit down with bob mueller, if he can convince the president to layoff

the constant attacks to the justice department, convince the president not to commit maybe a fatal act to his presidency by trying to fire bob mueller and burning the justice department to the ground, maybe that's something that isn't completely achievable for rudy giuliani. but if he could get one or two of those things, that would be a huge success. >> okay. i'm going to pick not burning the justice department to the ground as the one i hope rudy fixes. thank you so much. peter is sticking around. when we come back from an awkward review of the french president's wife's appearance to one of trump's closest allies on the world stage, the long strange journey of the trump/macron bromance. where in the world you're from. and with 5x more detail, it can lead you on an unexpected journey... ...that brings you closer to home. for just a few days, it's only $59 to discover your heritage. so instead of telling stories of where you went... ...you can tell the story of where you come from.

get ancestrydna for just $59. the lowest price of the year.

gives skin the moisture it needs and keeps it there longer with lock-in moisture technology skin is petal smooth after all, a cleanser's just a cleanser unless it's olay.

you cannot make a trade -- i'm an easy guy. i'm very simple. i'm straightforward. it's too complicated. if you make war against everybody, you make trade war against china, trade war against europe, war in syria, war

against iran, come on, it doesn't work. you need ally. we are the ally. >> he makes me want to be french. french president emmanuel macron with words of wisdom for president trump on foreign policy. macron is young enough to be donald trump's son. in fact, he's the same age as don, jr. macron and trump have an interesting history filled with awkward handshakes like this one in brussels or this one in paris that lasted an unbelievable 29 seconds. who can forget this? >> despite those bizarre encounters, the two leaders have maintained a strong rapport, one that got macron an invitation for the first state dinner of the trump presidency. macron arrived at joint base andrews earlier. he'll meet with the trumps in the next hour. here with me in l.a., acclaimed writer and director all around fantastic friend rob reiner, whose new political drama shock

and awe comes out this summer. christine, l.a. times, and author and writer and my old neighbor todd is here. contributing editor of vanity fair. peter baker with "the new york times" is still with us. peter, you got a piece out on this visit. i just want to at least start with substance before we go to those ridiculous encounters and read from your piece. macron was scheduled to arrive at the white house on monday on a mission to persuade president trump not to scrap the multinational nuclear agreement with iran. even as tehran's foreign minister warned there was no alternative to the deal and it is either all or nothing. macron hoped to use his unusual bond with the president to make the case the world is safer with the deal in place. anyone got money on how successful he's going to be? he made the case on the paris accord to no avail. he's made the case on other matters. and even though they have some personal chemistry, i don't know how many wins macron has chocked up. >> this is the real test. in fact, you know, even more so

than the climate deal, this agreement is in place. if the president decides to cancel on may 12, which is the deadline he set, there are real consequences to that. what you see from president macron maybe later in the week from chancellor merkel on friday, is an effort by the europeans to say we get it, your concerns, you are right there are weaknesses to to it. let's negotiate this follow on agreement they've been talking about with the state department that will make it stronger rather than get out altogether. >> peter, let me play some more of the macron interview. i think for an audience of one on "fox news sunday" yesterday. >> what do you have as a better option? i don't see it. what is a what if scenario or your plan b? i don't have any plan b for nuclear against iran. so, that's the question we will discuss. but that's why i just want to say on nuclear, let's preserve the framework because it's better than a sort of north korean type of situation. >> and, peter baker, i've got to

say a lot of republicans who weren't big cheer leaders of the kerry obama efforts in iran say exactly what macron just said. it's better than nothing. it's what we've got and we don't have the bandwidth for another north korea-like situation. >> well, that's right. the timing of north korea, of course, is very striking. this deal, this deadline on iran is may 12. in theory, the president is meeting with north korean early may or june weeks later. what will be the impact on the negotiating table with the north koreans if the president has just scrapped the iran deal? what will they take away from that as the lesson? that's the question that, you know, a lot of people are asking the president right now. it may influence him to at least keep this deal on the table with iran for the moment. anyway, while they continue these negotiations with the europeans. >> you know, it is so bizarre to see foreign leaders turn and talk to the president the way newt gingrich and chris christie do on tv. >> he's smart to do that. i mean, i think macron has

figured out how to manage trump. >> like kennedy and macron figured out -- >> they figured out how to do that, you know, he'll listen to that. i think he also liked the parade. >> he loved the parade. >> loved the parade. >> loved the wife. >> loved the wife, she was in great shape. you know, he's playing him -- >> you're knee deep in sort of our place in the world and the threats we face from russia. frankly, macron and the french were stronger in keeping the russians out of their democracy than we've been. >> yes. >> year, year and a half later in ours. >> they were smart because they actually listened to what was going on, that the russians had invaded us, had attacked us. and they took precautions. and they actually, you know, did some jujitsu on the russians, were able to throw back some fake news back to them and were able to keep -- preserve the integrity of the elections. this president has not wanted to do anything in terms of securing the elections for whatever

reasons, whether he feels it makes him illegitimate or there are actual real ties to russia we will find out as time goes by, is astounding. it's just astounding. >> something else that is astounding to a lot of people is the idea that, one, this is the president's first state dinner. i think george w. bush invited the leader of mexico by the first summer of his presidency. you covered the bush administration. ill w i was at the funeral for barbara bush over the weekend. melania trump is every bit a traditional first lady representing this country at home and on the world stage, but donald trump not so much. >> no. the one traditional thing they're doing is having it in the state dining room. it is going to be much smaller than the dinners when the obamas -- >> explain that. >> i think republicans in general have smaller state dinners. the ws -- >> they never invited only republicans. >> it's a shock to have no democratic leaders of congress, no members of the media at all.

no -- i don't know, we haven't heard if there are movie stars or cultural figures. it would be really rare, i mean, and quite insulting not to have the democratic leaders of congress. >> what do you think? >> well, in part you have to think about what the symbolism of this is in jen. you' -- in general. the conversation shifts a little bit. just because he knows how to communicate with the president on fox news, he knows how to communicate with this president because he's had a little bit of experience here. from the optimistic point of view, you think several world leaders the president has interacted with on maybe awkward ways or had conflict with, the more they start to have this kind of engagement and particularly here where there is a lot of symbolism involved and advisors are giving him the right advice, the right types of things you want to talk about, what you want to project as a good ally, that would be something positive -- >> you're not optimistic. >> the fact you pointed out there are no democrats there, there are no members of the media there. this is a president -- and i tweeted this today. i mean, he basically was not wanted at the kennedy center

honors. he is embarrassed and frightened to go to the white house correspondents dinner. and he was not invited to a funeral of a first lady. this is a president who can't show up at places and he's representing us on the world stage. it's crazy. >> i don't know if he was invited or not. mrs. trump was very much welcome. pick up this thread of sort of, you know, we muddle along. i don't think that we're guilty of normalizing -- i don't think anybody here is guilty of normalizing anything. but the rubber does meet the road when a foreign leader comes to our country and has to go on fox news to convey a message. normally talks about the iran deal happen in bilats. you have these conversations. whether there is agreement or disagreement, that is how you communicate. it is truly unprecedented to see a world leader's first sort of face pop up on fox news. >> look at the infrastructure of the national security council or the state department.

who are the inter locutors. who is he going to talk to at the state department who is going to have the president's ear? >> i think we stare at the wrong shot. we talk about state-run media. it's a media-run state. we're staring at the wrong end of the looking glass. do you think that on the iran -- ripping up the iran deal is almost like building the wall. it was one of the more consistent policy positions that the president had. >> even terrible, horrible deal he said. >> he went to that rail. i don't think he had any idea what he was talking about. they all stood there and talked about getting out, that it was a bad deal. do you think that there's been any evolution, do you think macron stands a chance of c convincing him? >> the number one goal of macron and merkel are don't scrap this deal. let's figure out a way to save

it. what you've seen out of mike pompeo who i know we're going to talk about, the incoming secretary of state once confirmed, is the idea we can renegotiate it. iran is saying, no, that's not the way this works. and they are making a lot of threats. and then you have that going on at the exact same time you're planning this very important summit with north korea. these are really interesting times to not have a secretary of state in place yet. >> and to have a tweeting president making policy there. peter baker, do you want to get in a last word since you wrote a great piece on the front page of your paper? >> well, look, you know, it's a gamble right now for the europeans, but they're giving him a potential out by saying, look, we're going to strengthen the deal. it may be just enough what he needs to hold on and say i'm going to make it better. he can't simply accept it as it is otherwise he would be turning back on what he has said in the past. but if he has something to hold onto, saying i'm making change, i've convinced the europeans to go along with me, you can see how he might get passed this may 12 deadline.

doesn't mean he keeps the deal forever. the coincidence of time with the north korea thing increases the incentive to punt the decision down the road. >> also another big test for the brand-new i think ten-day old new national security advisor peter bolton. peter baker thank you so much for being with us. up next as one of the president's closest foreign policy advisors is locked in a tight confirmation battle, another is facing more questions about his ethics. big stories in normal times. for this administration we call it monday.

toronto police have just given an update on the now deadly van attack. what do we know. >> it was just moments ago as you pointed out that authorities went before reporters to tell them the grim news. that is they confirmed that nine people were killed in this incident. 16 others were injured when a

man -- driver plowed up on to the sidewalk in toronto, canada's largest city, and according to eyewitnesses, it appeared as though that driver were deliberating targeting pedestrians. according to authorities they say they are out there asking for anyone in the area who might have seen this to contact authorities. they call this a major investigation that is now underway. they do have the driver in custody, the driver of that rental van. they have not identified that driver as yet. and the other thin they haven't done is offered up a motive as to why this might have happened. again, theible tretic news we are hearing right now. authorities confirming that nine people have been killed and 16 injured when this van plowed up onto the sidewalk in toronto in the middle of the afternoon, about 1:30 this afternoon and killing nine people and injuring 16 others. >> it is a horrific tragedy. nine people who may have just walked out to get a sandwich.

lives changes, family' lives changed. msnbc will stay on the story. join us with any updates. >> we will. we turn back to other political headlines today in a story that will be developing over the next couple of hours. a huge step in the confirmation process for secretary of state hopeful mike pompeo. barring a last-minute change of heart for anyone on the senate foreign relation's committee before their vote the current cia director's nomination will not have enough support to be favorably reported to the full senate. that doesn't end pompeo's chances for the jobs. mitch mcconnell and and will still bring the nomination up for a full floor vote where it seems he has enough votes for a confirmation. trump is making history. rand paul is one of the no votes. he voted to confirm john kerry? >> it's become insane. we were talking earlier, nobody wants to work at this white house for a reason. now pompeo has a lot of

experience in a lot of areas. i have my issues with him on human rights, and that's supposed to be one of the big exports that we have in america is that we export our values and what we care about, human rights. and he's not very good on that. but he is experienced in government. but the pool is very thin, very shallow, we can find people that want to go to work there. >> the thing about pompeo is in trump world he is a rock star. i mean, even democrats will say -- i hear what you are saying from a of the will democrats who say i agree with him on nothing. chris him said this on morning joe this morning, i agree with him on nothing you about as house members we travel together and he is competent. that seems like the new grade a for the trump white house. competence. >> it should be the floor. >> you should start with all confidence. >> it shouldn't be the ceiling. i think to be confirmed by a whisker like this is not a very ringing endorsement of anybody. >> for secretary of state. >> no, for the senior most

important cabinet position. first of all to have a vacancy in that job at this point in the administration. >> especially when it is a colleague. a member of congress usually has an easier time getting through. he didn't get up quickly the first time he was up for a confirmation vote. he had 66. >> the bar is owe low that -- people said he sailed through last time. i'm like no, he had 66 votes. >> pewity, carson, zinke, he is like a genius compared to these people. >> pruitt is back in the news with a story that his shenanigans began long long ago. hear all the headlines pruitt has been making. we didn't look back very far. we did a google check. this is not the kind of best people that donald trump wanted to bring to washington. >> one of the issues here that i find interesting is that hillary clinton and the donald trump campaign each thought hillary clinton was going to be the next

president. soap it speaks to you have been very involved in this, the actual transition and planning and thinking ahead and that involves vetting and background checks. that's one of the reasons you have had such high administration turnover. in addition to what rob is saying, a lot of people weren't put through all of the same chanls they were put through in 2008 and 2009 -- >> he has been here a year. >> it's not because they didn't do it. they threw it all in the garbage can. chris christie ran a year long transition. >> you get what you pay for. this they did it on the fly. >> what do you think happens to pruitt. he and his soundproof bone putin. >> he may be a secretary of one. in the normal laws of physics he could not survive. but as long as he's pleasing the president, i guess he's there. >> and it is a one of the most

active agencies doing things, particularly here in california, undoing some of california's most important regulations. >> as a democrat all i can think of is many of the things that have happened in terms of deregulation, and to me having a massive negative impact on the environment is those things can be undone. we can reverse a lot of those things. and that's the hope. that's the hope. i mean, look, we lead the way here in california for air quality, for emissions control, and all of that. and so that is what we should be taking our lead from. >> that bores you more about the pruitt the ethical lapses for the policies. >> the policies. >> you are fine with the soundproof phone booth. >> i'm not fine with it. only made worse by the policies. >> we put up a list of all president's men, flynn pleaded guilty to the fbi. zichky, they are the shadiest people you could fine and they are running our federal government. >> the challenge with pruitt is

there has been coverage suggesting recently he is so hasty about these deregulations that he is doing it in the wrong way that won't withstand jushl scrutiny and it will hurt his own case. on the merits i think it is a question, too. >> since you talked about it, i have a puck from the funeral on saturday of melania trump. there we go, let's leave the president out of it. >> they left the president out. >> he would don't know that -- >> i said after the funeral it is a rare -- not very many more times in our life time will we see two president bushs, two democratic presidents who have true affection for one another in a room together and barbara barbara bush deserved a lot of that credit for reaching back to bill clinton when bill clinton and george bush became friends and started raising money together for the tsunami. on aids policy, on getting the

anti-retro viral drugs to africa. and then it was president obama who gave george h.w. bush 41 the medal of freedom and forged that friendship. what does that picture mean in america right now. >> i think it means those from the days. in some ways that's the normal fact of life in the president's club. we only -- there are a handful of people who know what it's like. i don't think we are going to see reunion pictures like that in future years with this president. it's just not going to be the same kind of -- >> it also speaks to healed wounds. >> watching barack obama and hillary clinton standing next to each other i'm always remembering that 2008 campaign that everybody predicted they would never heal from that intensity and bill clinton and george bush's friendship is something that made good lasting change in this world. life is lon. >> these are all public serve apartments. these are all people -- whatever you want to say, whether you agree or disagree with the

policies they are public servants and they have worked hard and they also understand that to get things done you have to work together. they have all worked together and we have a very divisive president right now, and it's pretty clear why he's not in that picture. >> all right. my thanks to rob reiner, christina bell tony, you are going to regret being so nice to us. we may never leave. we are like bats out in the sunlight for the furs time in month. that does it for me. hi katy. >> if you stay in l.a., can i come, too? >> yes, come on. >> why are you there? >> i'm doing conan. they must have had a cancellation. i called myself b rate already. all the other guests cancelled and i get to be on conan. >> you are first rate, a rate, good luck, have fun. we will be