partisan angry remarks at the department and rosenstein confirmed. that there is a lot of breaking news this evening. we'll have a lot more on meet the press starts right now. this sunday, attacking robert mueller. president trump denounces the russia investigation. >> they've been saying that for a long this sunday, attacking robert mueller. president trump denounces the russia investigation. >> they've been saying that for a long time. witch hunt. >> his lawyer, rudy giuliani warns if they think mueller's report is unfair. >> we're ready to rip it apart and we're ready to rip them apart if that's what they want. >> with the mueller probe entering year two, my guests this morning congressman adam schiff ranking democrat on the intelligence committee and roger stone. plus, spy games. president trump accuses the fbi of spying on his campaign saying if true, political scandal, but the fbi said it moved only after becoming aware contacts between the campaign and russia.

we'll have the details. also a big week for women and progressive candidates. at issue are democrats more likely to win back the house aiming from the left or from the center? i'll ask senator bernie sanders of vermont, and it's happened again. another school shooting, another ten dead and another sign that this has become a part of american life. >> i've always kind of felt like eventually it was going to happen here, too. i wasn't surprised. i was just scared. >> joining me for insight and analysis are nbc correspondent hallie jackson. new york times columnist david brooks. hugh hewitt host of the salem radio network and yamiche alsindor, white house correspondent. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press". >> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press with chuck todd." >> good sunday morning.

one year into robert mueller's russia investigation we're seeing two narrative, the counter narrative that president trump and his allies are creating. for instance, members of the trump team meet at trump tower. president trump says anyone else would have done the same. mueller brings charges against former campaign manager paul manafort. the president insists mueller is going too far fishing for information. the steele dossier, they're the ones that did the colluding and the latest, the fbi dispatches an informant to talk to trump campaign advisers after learning of suspicious contacts with russia. president trump and his allies insist that's a sign of fbi misconduct bigger than watergate. as the evidence appears to mount to mr. trump, he is beginning to serve with events one that he hopes will shield him politically whenever mueller releases his report. here's a known known. the closer mueller appears to

get, the more mr. trump and his allies lash out. >> and we're ready to rip them apart if that's what they want. >> president trump is suggesting he has been framed by his own justice department. this week, calling the mueller probe a disgusting, illegal and unwarranted witch hunt. >> it looks like the trump campaign may, in fact, have been surveilled. >> for a long time we've been told there was some kind of infiltration. >> the latest issues, the role of a confidential fbi informant. according to reporting the fbi source met with at least three trump campaign advisers after the fbi received evidence of suspicious contacts with the russians. two of them, george papadopoulos and michael flynn have already pleaded guilty to making false statements to investigators about their contacts with the russians. a third campaign aide, carter page had been on the fbi's radar since 2013. one year after robert mueller

was appointed to oversee the russian investigation into russian influence in the 2016 election and potential coordination with trump associates, mueller's probe has produced 14 indictment against individuals and secured five guilty pleas. backed into a corner the president has moved from denying the facts of his aides 'involvement by trying to discredit his own justice department. >> it's a witch hunt. >> witch hunt. >> if you've asked me who committed crimes here, the crimes have been committed by investigators. >> for weeks, mr. trump's allies in the house have publicly identified the fbi informant despite warnings that trump appointed. >> the day that we can't protect human sources is the day that american people start becoming less safe. >> over the last year, as new, inconvenient fact emerge the explanations for mr. trump and his associates have continued to shift on campaign contacts and coordination with the russians. >> i had no meetings. no meetings.

>> i have had no contacts from russians or intermediaries for russians. >> for me, this was opposition research. >> even if it comes from a russian or a german or an american, it doesn't matter, and they never used it is the main thing. >> joining me now is a long time republican operative, an ally of president trump, roger stone. stone, by the way, is the author of a new book "stone's rules," mr. stone, welcome to "meet the press," sir. >> thank you for having me, chuck. >> let me start with this, we learned two associates have been subpoenaed recently by the special counsel. we know prosecutors have been asking witnesses about you. last time we talked you said you hadn't been interviewed by the special counsel. are you preparing to be indicted? >> well, chuck, i don't know if i'm an interesting person or a person of interest. i think these leaks out of the

special counsel's office are reprehensible. at least eight of my current or former associates, mostly young people have been terrorized by mr. mueller's investigators. i can guarantee you they have found no evidence whatsoever of russian collusion nor trafficking of allegedly hacked emails with wikileaks. it is not inconceivable now that mr. mueller and his team may seek to conjure up some extraneous crime pertaining to my business or maybe not even pertaining to the 2016 election. i would chock this up to silence me. i've been a critic on wars, on programs like this of the excesses of the partisanship of the mueller probe. so i am prepared should that be the case, but i think it just demonstrates again, this was supposed to be about russian collusion and it appears to be

an effort to silence or punish the president's supporters and his advocates. >> i don't know how this has silenced you. you're not someone who is silenced easily. you came here. to confirm, you have not had any contact with the special counsel's office personally? >> that -- that is correct. >> not your lawyer either? >> that is correct. >> okay. >> on the other hand, should they decide to proceed against me for some extraneous crime that i can't identify, perhaps we can get into the question raised by "the new york times" on january 20, 2017 that says i was the subject of a fisa warrant. for a u.s. citizen to be subject to a fisa warrant they have to be engaged in an espionage on behalf of a foreign power. that was certainly not the case as far as i am concerned so i'm

very anxious to fiend out "the new york times has never retracted that story, by the way. i'm anxious to find out why i would have been subject to such a fisa warrant. >> well, i think one of the areas of interest apparently has to do with your communications with wiki leaks and various tweets you have said. so let me go down that road with you. i've asked you this before. let me ask you again here, did you have any advanced knowledge of any kind about john podesta's hacked emails? >> no. absolutely not, and chuck, an honest reading of my tweet i said the podestas apostrophe "s," timing the barrel. this isn't about the apostrophe, in every account the word "the" has been omitted and it refers

to more than one person, as i have said this before, even though you want to revive this chestnut. i was referring to both the podesta brothers that exposed their shady business dealings in russia. john and tony, the podestas, even the final report of the house intelligence committee mistakenly omits the word "the" from my tweet. >> fair enough. let me ask you about tweets in the first week of october. they go this way. >> yes. >> october 2nd, roger stone writes wednesday, @hillary clinton is done. #wikileaks. let's go to october 3rd. i have total confidence that wicky leaks and my hero julian assange will educate the american people soon. #lockherup. libs thinking assange will stand down are wishful thinking, #lockherup. julian assange will deliver a devastating expose on hillary at the time of his choosing and i stand by my prediction, and the next day is october 7th and then the emails come out. a fair reading of that suggests to me you had some advanced warning of something big coming that had to do with john podesta's emails. how is it that the special counsel wouldn't think that,

too? >> well, there's no evidence of that because i had no advanced notice of the contact source or the exact disclosure time of the wikileaks disclosures. assange himself has said so. assange has said in his own tweets and in interviews that roger stone never predicted anything that i hadn't already said in public. additionally, assange went on cnn in june and said he had a treasure trove of material on hillary, and i've been very forthright and testified completely and honestly before the house intelligence committee that i did have a source who told me that assange really had what he said he would have and that it would be delivered in october consistent with those tweets. there is no evidence to the contrary that i had advanced notice. chuck, we'd been down this road before and i answered these questions for you previously. >> i understand. you've been very specific with your denial.

i had no -- i had no awareness of the content and the source, but you had an awareness, and you seem to have some -- you seem to be very specific with the denial. explain that specificity. >> sure. it's very simple. all one has to do is follow julian assange's tweets and set a google news tweet for julian assange and read every interview he's given and everything that i predicted is contained in his public comments. if there is no evidence whatsoever that i had advanced knowledge of the content or source of this material. i received nothing from wikileaks or from the russians. i passed nothing on to donald trump or the trump campaign. we've been through this ad nauseam. it is a wild goose chase. >> are you 100% confident that julian assange has nothing to do with the russians or russian government or any sort of

russian associate? >> first of all, i don't even believe the democratic national committee was hacked based on the article i read in the nation magazine. >> john podesta's email his nothing to do with the dnc, by the way. they weren't part of the dnc hack. >> again, i never predicted the disclosures of john podesta's emails. there does need to be some context though, chuck. at the time the clinton people were actively promoting among members of and many of your colleagues, paul manafort's business activities in eastern europe, the activities of john and tony podesta were already public having been published in the panama papers. there is no evidence that i knew about the accessing by wikileaks of john podesta's email or their publications in advance. no evidence whatsoever. >> before i let you go, i want to ask you about a comment you gave to the new york times last month about michael cohen and you said this, donald goes out of his way to treat him like garbage. explain what you meant by that.

>> well, michael cohen wanted very much to be in politics. he wanted to be in the campaign. he wanted to be in the administration. he has not achieved any of those things. i don't think the president regarded him as a political genius or was open to his desires in that area, and he had a tendency to discount any political advice that michael would give him. what mr. cohen has and has not done for the president, i have no way of knowing, chuck. i'm not an attorney nor was i privy to any of those internal dealings. >> do you think he should have something to fear from michael cohen because of the way he treated him? >> i've been in politics for 40 years. i know enough not to answer hypothetical questions. >> roger stone, i will leave it there. thank you for coming on. i appreciate it and i will try to find more hypothetical questions for you the next time we talk. >> thank you so much. >> you got it. joining me now from los angeles is the top democrat on the house intelligence committee congressman adam schiff. welcome back to "meet the

press," sir. >> thank you. >> i want to ask you about, you heard roger stone's denials when it comes to the specificities and they're very specific denials and just curious of your reaction there. your committee did interview him. do you believe his denials? >> well, look, roger stone is known for a lot of things and candor isn't really one of them and either his testimony before our committee are untrue or his public statements are untrue. both cannot be fact because they're inconsistent with each other. we were never allowed to find out which was the case in our committee. we should have used compulsory process to obtain his private text or twitter messages with wikileaks and something that he was forced to disclose when they came to light, and so his public comments that he never had contact with wikileaks and he never had contact with the intermediaries of the russians

are inconsist went certain facts and we were never allowed to follow the evidentiary trail, and i suspect bob mueller is and that's why so many of roger stone's confederates are being brought in, but someone needs to do that investigation and unfortunately we were not permitted to. >> i have to ask you about that, i asked mr. stone if he was preparing to be indicted and he said he was prepared if that is what came. he wasn't saying whether he expected it soon. you're a former prosecutor. it was interesting to us, there were four people involved in this investigation that have not been interviewed by bob mueller. michael cohen, brad parscale, the campaign manager for 2020, by the way, roger stone and the president's son donald trump jr. as a former prosecutor why would special counsel bob mueller, someone who did not interview somebody even though they appear to be so important to an investigation. explain why that would be the case? >> it could be one of two reasons. it could be that they're saving the interviews, like the interview with the president for last after they've done the groundwork. it makes sense to find out all

you can before you bring in certain key witnesses or it could be that they're a target of the investigation. it is not something that you can breathe easy about that you haven't been called in. sometimes that might indicate that you might be the target of the investigation and more likely to be charged than interviewed and it could be either of those possibilities. >> let me ask you about this controversy involving the fbi informant. this is something that your republican counterpart in the intelligence committee, he wants the department of just toys release more information about this informant. we now know who this person is. when did you become aware of this fbi informant? >> i do not want to characterize what this individual may or may not be, but i do want to say the justice department, the fbi, even the white house although clearly not the president has said that revealing information about this individual could compromise people's lives. it could betray a relationship with our allies, it could

compromise the investigation accident president's response and chairman nunes, gowden and others say we don't care. whatever is in service of the president we're willing to do. this is a dramatic and new and destructive low for the congress of the united states basically to ignore the warnings of the fbi and justice department and pot shally risk people's lives. what they would like this information for is clearly to be of service to the trump defense team and further any narrative they have. the most i can tell you, chuck, this claim by the president's suggestion by giuliani is that there is a political spy embedded in the trump campaign is nonsense and you hear it in the same terms that trump often speaks that people are saying or i'm hearing or we're being told, that's another way of saying this is patently untrue, but we would like to spread it anyway and it's singularly destructive of our institutions, but that's the point. >> in fairness of the president and his supporters, they look at

the history of this informant. they see that he was involved in political campaigns and even possibly political espionage in 1980 and they think why shouldn't they be suspicious of this? >> again, i can't comment on the identity of any individual or source, but i can say this. this is part of a string of meritless allegations from the very beginning that i was wiretapped in trump tower, there is a vast unmasking conspiracy, and the investigation began with the steele dossier and all of which is untrue it's designed to create this alternate reality for trump supporters. >> very quickly, you are confident the fbi acted appropriately. >> i am confident. everything i've seen it would have been negligent for the fbi not to take steps to protect the country in the midst of the information it was receiving. >> i want to ask you what appears to be a bombshell new addition to what we know about the mueller probe. "the new york times" and "wall

street journal," another meeting that might become infamous. trump junior and other aides met with golf emissary to win election. >> what can you tell me about the players? you have george nader as the emissary claiming he had two princes in gulf state countries willing to help the president and betsy devos' brother and also supporter of the president. what do you know about this, an israeli form is included in here. what can you tell us about this? >> we sought to bring in george nader and the republican members were unwilling to do so. he could have shed light on this as well as eric prince's testimony before the committee was true or untrue. i can say this, if these facts are accurate it demonstrates yet again how not only willing, but eager the president's son and

the trump campaign were to solicit to receive foreign help, and i completely disagree with mr. giuliani, receiving, soliciting, using foreign assistance is a crime. you're not allowed to get the help of a foreign government, friendly or unfriendly. if it is accurate, it is consistent with the other trump tower meeting. >> was this stuff new to you guys? on the house intel committee? >> the specifics of this were certainly new, yes, and of course, disturbing as yet another indication of the willingness to accept foreign help. >> adam schiff, the ranking democrat of the house intelligence committee, i have to leave it there. thank you for coming on. when we come back, so much to discuss, as you can see it's gotten more complicated, president trump and the mueller investigation and now middle eastern figures involved and a possible indictment. the panel is next there. as we go to break we'll remember the ten people, eight students and two teachers who lost their lives in friday's school shooting in san that fe. ♪

your... quitting cable and never looking back thing. directv is rated #1 in customer satisfaction over cable. switch to directv and now get a $100 reward card. more for your thing. that's our thing. call 1.800 directv. with dell small businessout your technology advisors you get the one-on-one partnership you need to grow your business. the dell vostro 15 laptop. contact a dell advisor today. this is bill's yard. and bill has a "no-weeds, not in my yard" policy. but with scotts turf builder weed & feed, bill has nothing to worry about.

it kills weeds and greens grass, guaranteed. this is a scotts yard.

oh hi sweetie, i just wanteed. to show you something. xfinity mobile: find my phone. [ phone rings ] look at you. this tech stuff is easy. [ whirring sound ] you want a cookie? it's a drone! i know. find your phone easily with the xfinity voice remote.

one more way comcast is working to fit into your life, not the other way around. welcome back. the panelists here. hugh hewitt from the radio welcome back. the panelists here. hugh hewitt from the radio network and nbc news white house correspondent hallie jackson and david brook, columnist at "the new york times," mr. brook, i'm going to start with you. mueller one year in what is reminded today in "the new york times," wow, there is a lot we don't know. that's true. i've been a bear on this all along and my scandal meter is ten. i've moved to three to four mostly when you ask was there collusion with the trump damp camp, i don't think there was the trump campaign and there are disorganized people to have actual collusion. what i think is happening and the roger stone phrase that i heard most clearly was the phrase extraneous claims, and if you have a white house prosecutor they might cross that.

that is more likely where this will all end up. >> hallie? >> the president is, based on my reporting, no surprise, furious about this. he's upset with what's come out with adam schiff about the "new york times" story, a story he either read or was told about. there is inside the west wing, even those who acknowledge that the president doesn't have his facts right all of the time when he tweets about this stuff and people are extremely upset about the idea that the fbi might have been looking into the trump campaign and might have been investigating and each those who acknowledge it might not be political and it wouldn't have been political at all, and they say listen. we have become so desensitized to this because he understands that this could help him discredit the mueller investigation which i'm told he believes could end up happening in this case. "the new york times" story is painting a largely potentially disturbing picture, depending where the facts lead here with a whole bunch of foreign nationals seem to think we have our own agenda here and perhaps they thought this was a transactional guide that they can work with and they got aggressive.

we don't know what the trump campaign did, but it certainly looks like a lot of outside forces thought that was a soft target. >> sure, a lot of people saw a lot of things and we've seen the denials and you think that the trump campaign is desperate to get something going and might have been willing to buy anything. it's an important point, the mueller report will be fascinating reading at the very end and i continue to implore the president and his team not to attack mr. mueller because it's -- >> the horse is out of the barn on that one. >> there are four investigations and it would be best to opine than outline. >> there is an investigation that the server is done and closed.

there is an ig investigation and there is a special council's investigation which could go for years and not be out of bounds and there's an investigation between what happened between june of '16 and the inauguration and that is the investigation that has got the center right upset about -- you know, adam schiff wouldn't call him an informant. i don't know what to call this individual. that's the one that we're focused on right now. >> i think we're one year into president trump's trying to make the case that he's a victim and trying to lay the groundwork for this investigation between something that's partisan and something completely attacking him and polls show that people have settled into their views and those that are highly partisan and in that regard the president's narrative is in some ways working and people look at this investigation and think if you're a democrat you want to know about it and super interested in it and you buy what roger stone and rudy giuliani are saying. i talked to rudy giuliani multiple times this week and the thing he kept saying to me is "the new york times" story proves our point and they were asked about it from the very

beginning. they want it to be something that is interesting to read, but not something that has teeth behind it. >> i'm struck by something with mueller. the trump team is all about -- they have a political strategy. they're not disputing facts. they're disputing the fact finders. they're not even going at facts. mueller is basically silent. ken starr wasn't silent. ken starr used to fight back. mueller is staying completely silent, but he's not going to be in a courtroom so he could win a court case, perhaps, but is trump trumping him by going and making a political argument? nobody gets in the mud with donald trump emerges better and he's doing the right thing by being silent. most fbi agents and most prosecutors and as far as i know, mueller are straight players. donald trump is taking advantage of the high-level of social distrust in this country that everything is crooked and we all hang around people in washington

and work at agencies especially with places like the justice department and the fbi and those people are weirdly non-political. they're doing their own and they believe in their job and they're not super political people. >> they haven't been since cohen intel and you remember the bad years from '66 to '71, when the fbi was involved in bad things and they worked very hard to restore their reputation after that, and now the mueller report has got to be very carefully written. the starr report was not. it was badly bungled and they've got to write this report well so it persuades the center. >> if anybody will do that. >> what's interesting is earlier this week and peter hart who is one part of the nbc journal polling team and have clinton voters and trump voters and i've been struck by kurt. there was one gentleman in there who said was overwhelmed by it all who said stormy daniel, mueller, how does that all work and you do wonder how is that playing in america and --

>> that's exactly. the president's team is taking advantage of that. the idea that every week we come out as some people view as incremental developments in this that are extremely confusing and there's a billion names and you talk about georg nader and it's a lot for people to grasp and it's the potential findings of robert mueller will come out with whatever they are and for people out in the country, the president's team will say they care more about the job's numbers and care more about the economy and that's a nice narrative for them to sell because there could be serious bombshells potentially coming out of when we hear from robert mueller and we're getting closer to the possibility of a sitdown for donald trump and that is something that will break through to kurt and to the voters if he does talk with them. >> that's true. i wonder if you look at the times story this morning yamiche, the president's foreign policy decisions, whether it's the deal, the close tons sawed saudi arabia, it could break lue. >> the point that hallie is making and what i found on the campaign trail that people voted for the president because their lives are going to be better and people are hoping that that happens and they're trying to

get their kids to school and watching all of these other things going on and they're trying to get health care and trying to figure out if the republicans' tax bill will improve their lives and then they have to read these stories about russia and they're wondering, okay, is this real? how do i know about this? how does this impact my life? i do think something breaks through and i do think the polls show that the majority of americans want the president to sit down with mueller's team because it looks so bad if he doesn't. >> this is just a carnival of low lives. you have russian oligarchs and the manafort people and they were all meeting and whether they were colluding is disturbing and trump voters say he's not a great guy. >> they don't think about of us are and that's the thing. >> they don't think any of us are -- >> one thing about the roger stone thing. if you tweet as though you've got inside information then people will believe you have inside information. >> honest to goodness, you have to live with what you tweet. >> it's a pretty damning set -- >> there you go.

all right. >> back in a moment with the big center versus left battle taking place inside the democratic party and the senator who has a definite idea about what democrats should do. it's bernie sanders of vermont. and had twin boys. but then one night, a truck didn't stop. but thanks to our forester, neither did our story. and that's why we'll always drive a subaru. if you way too often...e moves then you might have a common condition called dry mouth... which can be brought on by many things, like medication and medical conditions. biotène provides immediate, long lasting relief from dry mouth symptoms. it is clinically proven to soothe and moisturize a dry mouth.

plus, it freshens breath. biotène. immediate and long lasting dry mouth symptom relief. uhp. i didn't believe it. again. ♪ ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth? ♪ i want to believe it. [ claps hands ] ♪ ooh i'm not hearing the confidence. okay, hold the name your price tool. power of options based on your budget! and! ♪ we'll make heaven a place on earth ♪ yeah! oh, my angels! ♪ ooh, heaven is a place on earth ♪ [ sobs quietly ]

welcome welcome back. tuesday was another primary night, four states last tuesday and it turned out to be a big

night for women candidates, and and a democrat of nebraska. another progressive, stacy abrams appears poised to win the democratic nomination for the governor of georgia. she hopes to win the general election without relying on the state's most conservative light voters. democrats worry that while progressive candidates fire up the base that they may be too liberal to get elected and it's the independent senator bernie sanders of vermont. senator sanders, welcome back to "meet the press." so let me ask you to respond to the concern now that you've heard from national democrats and i know technically your organization didn't back easeman in nebraska, but many other progressives did, and now they're not riding the race soft and they're backing off on the hopes that she's not electable enough. what do you say to national democrats who say be careful of this nominating folks that are too progressive? >> i think that they are wrong, and i think they are misreading where the american people are at. you know, chuck, many of the issues that i campaigned on two years ago, issues like medicare for all, raising the minimum wage and the 15 bucks an hour and taking on the pharmaceutical industry, making public colleges and universities tuition-free, legalizing marijuana. a few years ago those were seen as radical, fringy ideas, you

know what in every instance those ideas are now supported by the american people, by the majority of the american people overwhelming the percentage of democrats. so what i think that candidates all over the country are now beginning to understand is that it is more important to reach out to the people in your community, working people and the middle class and lower income people than rather than just worry about what wealthy campaign contributors want you to say. i think candidates run on a progressive agenda which demands that we take on the billionaire class that we end the movement to an oligarchy in the country and i think that's not only good public policy and that's good politics where the candidates might win and it will go up with a level of excitement that

conservative democrats raise. >> do you buy the idea that there is such thing as electability that that should be a part of the primary argument? >> sure, we all want to win. the question is what constitutes electability. four years ago republicans, as you recall, republicans won a landslide victory across this country and we had the lowest voter turnout since world war ii. some 37% of the american people voted because establishment democrats don't generate excitement, and i think when you have progressive candidates and we have seen this now for the last year, last year and a half since trump has been elected we have seen progressive candidates

and seen voter turnout go up because the people in their communities know that it's time to stand up and fight. that's what they want to see. so the goal of the democrats, it seems to me in 2018 has got to be significantly raising voter turnout and you do that by talking about the issues that working families care about. >> well, it's funny you talk about, you got the messaging there, and i think i have an idea of where your answer is going to be and i spent a lot of time talking about the russia investigation and the mueller probe and there are serious allegations that are being investigated. at the same time you hear from rank and file voters, senator klobuchar saying they're not asking me about russian bots, okay? they're asking me about soybean exports. how much should democrats talk about russia and the mueller investigation on the campaign trail, in your opinion? >> i don't think, chuck, that it's either/or. i think you've got to do a lot

of things if you are a serious candidate. i think it's appropriate to talk about the need to protect american democracy to make sure and examine fully and support the mueller investigation to determine whether or not the trump campaign colluded with the russians. i think that's terribly important. i think that what we talk about preserving and fighting for american democracy, we have to stand up to voter suppression which trump and many republican governors all over this country are pushing and trying to make it harder for people to vote and we have to deal with excessive gerrymandering. so when we talk about protecting american democrat see, absolutely, you have to look at what mueller is doing, but that's not all what's going on in this country. what you are seeing all over america and my state and all over this country is people trying to survive on $9 or $10.

they can't afford housing and can't afford prescription drugs and they can't afford health care and they can't afford to send their kids to college. they're sick and tired of seeing the growth in income and healthcare equality and you must talk about those issues as well. >> do you think it's jumping the gun to talk about impeachment? >> the talk of impeachment on the campaign trail is actually a gift to the republicans and president trump. do you agree with her? >> think you allow the investigation to go where it goes. i'm a member of the united states senate, and if trump is impeached i will have to be making a decision, voting on that. you can't jump the gun and determine that somebody impeached when you will be voting on the impeachment issue. so i think you allow the mueller investigation to do its cause. you fight against anybody who wants to impede that investigation, but i think it is too early to talk about impeachment. >> i want to move to the tragedy on friday because there was a young high school student that said something that i think touched a lot of people. here's one of the survivors, paige curry. take a listen, senator. >> it's been happening everywhere. i felt -- i've always kind of felt that it was going to happen here, too.

so -- i don't know. i wasn't surprised. i was just scared. >> what does it is a that we have high school students that say oh, yeah, i expected this. how did we get here? >> chuck, it is unspeakable. it really is. to see the kids all over this country who go to a place where they should feel safe, where they can focus on learning are now worried about the things we saw in texas or in florida a few months ago. >> have you guys done enough? have you guys done enough in the senate? >> of course not! of course want! but it's like every other issue. the american people are united overwhelmingly, gun owners, non-gun owners, gun safety, gun legislation, do away with the loophole. >> why is it never passed? >> it's a three-letter word. it's the nra and it's trump and the republicans who don't have the guts to stand up to these people and that's pretty pathetic, and what you are seeing in general is not just the nra.

it's tax reform where you give huge tax breaks to billionaires and where republicans want to throw 32 million people off, you have congress dominated and the nra and the right-wing organizations and that is enormously unfair of the concern in this country and kids of those high schools and the american people in general. >> there was a time you weren't so tough in the nra in the '90s. do you believe they've changed or you've changed? >> first of all in 1988 i probably lost an election because i called for the ban on assault weapons in a state that had no gun control, but the nra, frankly, which one was, believe it or not a gun safety organization teaching kids how to use guns safely has moved to be part -- to become a right-wing political organization far beyond guns, as a matter of fact. >> senator bernie sanders is with the democrats from vermont. thanks for coming on and sharing your views. >> thank you. coming up, a tale of two countries, big implications with

how people vote. 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. this is bill's yard. and bill has a "no-weeds, not in my yard" policy. but with scotts turf builder weed & feed, bill has nothing to worry about. it kills weeds and greens grass, guaranteed. this is a scotts yard. and greens grass, guaranteed. when you combine ancestry's with its historical records... you could learn you're from ireland donegal, ireland and your ancestor was a fisherman. with blue eyes. just like you. begin your journey at ancestry.com

i'm still giving it my best even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm up for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. so what's next? seeing these guys. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.

♪ ♪ >> welcome back. data download time. in a country marked by deep political divisions, a college degree is increas >> welcome back. data download time. in a country marked by deep political divisions, a college degree is increasingly becoming one of the key factors in predicting how someone may vote. perhaps the biggest factor. now a college education is not about intelligence, rather those with and without a college degree seem to make different choices about key aspects of their lives. those with a college degree have gotten bigger raises than those without one. more college grad own homes and have full-time jobs while fewer college grads still live in the

state where they were born. meet the press recently visited two counties in pennsylvania that represent both sides of this division. there's densely populated chester county. an affluent suburb of philadelphia with a bustling downtown area and never more than a stone's throw from a starbucks. 70 miles away is sparsely populated schuylkill county, a rural, hillside community and not a starbucks in sight. these two places view having a college degree differently. >> a college degree will open more doors than without. >> a lot of the positions that are open right now in the county, you do not need a college degree for. >> and the numbers tell the story of these two counties. 50% of chester has a bachelors degree. that number is 15% in schuylkill. the median listing price for a home in chester is $380,000 compared to 75,000 in schuylkill and the median household income is 89,000 a year in chester versus 47,000 a year in

schuylkill and these two counties demonstrate the changing dynamics of politics, and they're losing their grips and mitt romney narrowly beat barack obama in 2012, and hillary clinton won by nine points in 2016. they're bolstering the 20 -- and trump won by a whopping 43 points. before that, schuylkill had voted for a democrat as recently as 1996 and the democrat's name was clinton. since the 2016 election many folks have tried to stereotype the coasts as the places living in their own bubbles, but when you dig into these numbers there are blue and red bubbles all across the country. chester and schuylkill are two of these such bubbles and finding common ground between them, less than 100 miles away from each other is growing increasingly difficult. when we come back, another school shooting. now some are saying prayer alone aren't the answer. you could spread to

family members, including your grandchildren babies too young to be vaccinated against whooping cough are the most at risk for severe illness. but you can help prevent this. talk to your doctor today about getting vaccinated against whooping cough. because dangers don't just exist in fairytales. i needthat's whenvice foi remembered that my ex-ex- ex-boyfriend actually went to law school, so i called him. he didn't call me back! if your ex-ex- ex-boyfriend isn't a lawyer, call legalzoom and we'll connect you with an attorney. legalzoom. where life meets legal. hey, i'm curious about your social security alerts. oh! just sign up online

and we'll alert you if we find your social security number on any one of thousands of risky sites. that sounds super helpful. how much is it? well, if you have a discover card, it's free. no way! yes way! we just think it's important for you to be in the know. all right! hey... ewww! everything ok? being in the know is very good. yeah, it is. ooo don't shake! don't shake! ahhh! know if your social security number is found on risky sites. free from discover.

back now with end game, the tragedy on friday felt extraordinarily familiar to folks. here's a facebook post. an excerpt from the police chief in houston. this took place 30 miles outside of houston, not in his jurisdiction. but he writes this. police chief in houston. i've hit rock bottom. this isn't a time for prayers and study and inaction. it's a time for prayers, action and the asking of god's

forgiveness for our inaction, especially the elected officials that ran to the cameras today acted in solemn manner, called for prayers and will once again do absolutely nothing. yamiche? >> i think that we are seeing a generation, if i had to go to the kids that we're looking at now, we are seeing a generation of kids who drew up at rock bottom. only six years ago newtown, connecticut had six year olds shot. they are now activists. the reason this generation is so plugged in and can talk about this so articulate is because they had to watch all these kids die and do nothing. i remember being on the ground in newtown and thinking, surely something is going to be different and nothing was different. when you watch the interviews of these kids, one baseball player, i'm going to say his name, i think it is important, rome shoe bert, he got shot in the head and then was talking to reporters the same day with band aids stuck to his head, soaked in blood. it reminded me this is a

generation that can't be fragile because they don't have the luxury to be fragile any more. >> if something is going to change the way this country regulates, deals with guns, it's going to come from the kids and the states right now. because i will tell you, i spoke with a top white house official last night, there is not an appetite to do something on this. there is not an appetite -- there is not. >> this is an election year. >> and that's the thing. until this becomes -- we talked about this on this set before. until this becomes a mobilization issue for voters on election day, that is unlikely to change. >> you said each of these events is super horrible, but we shouldn't be scare mongering. the number of school shootings has plummeted since the 1990s. schools are the safest place kids can be. i'm for gun control. i'm more thinking there is a media problem here. we need to stop naming the shooters and putting their face on tv. we have a social contagion with these lunatics. >> that's what it feels like. >> malcolm glad well wrote a persuasive piece that it may be epidemic in that it

exponentially expands among the teenage petri dish in terms of the inclination towards it. it is an urgent issue for governors. before the show i was mentioning doug in parkland, governor of arizona, went to his legislature with a request for stop orders, severe threat order of protection. david french has written a national view about gun restraining issues. these ought to be treated as urgently as the possible of a hurricane or erkt quake and that governors need to lead like duce did and the republican legislature, i will name them, stopped his legislative proposal. to their shame if this happens in arizona because stop orders can work. >> it strikes me, there is always a way to stop legislation on this because whatever it is, either you have some that say that hasn't gone far enough so i'm not going to support it or some that say that's the beginning of the slippery slope. >> or you have the nra that's out there kind of funneling money to all sorts of candidates and all sorts of lawmakers so you have them kind ever

administering their pressure throughout the government. i remember when the parkland shooting happened and president trump for a little bit sounded like he might take on the nra. remember asking in the briefing room, would the president give political coverage or republicans who did decide to take on the nra. the deputy press secretary said, yes, the president would do this. then of course he goes to the nra convention and completely says absolutely not. i'm here to protect the second amendment. so what you see is the president kind of in the moment feeling as though he might say something and then reverting back to -- i think his instincts which is to go to the far-right. >> i don't know if we'll see anything after the shooting in texas. remember, he brought cameras in. it was one of those remarkable moments, a televised interaction with these members of congress. he needled, remember, joe manchin. he said, why haven't you -- why didn't you do this when it came to lifting the age for certain types of assault weapons. i don't know that -- i think that was a learning experience, not just for donald trump, but for the people around him.

i think at this moment he is expressing empathy. he may go visit texas, but action is something else. >> but wait a minute, you brought up doug duce. a lot of people didn't believe rick scott was going to try and he went and did. it was interesting to me, david brooks, greg abbott even said prayers aren't enough this time. we don't know what that means. maybe he's going to be for something, but the point is i do think you're right. every gloerch realizes. he's been through a few. maybe the more you go through as a governor the more personally it hits you. >> it's become a culture war, not about guns. get red state people out leading the cause. you do see that. i believe there are kralks in the wall. public support for stricter gun rules was up to 52%, now it's up to 70. something has shifted even in the last two shootings. you may begin to see red state people. then it will have the cultural significance. >> one quick thing. do you think the nra is hurting themselves by getting too

political? >> yes. >> oliver north seems like the exact wrong person to have as your face in 2018. >> as you just mentioned, doug duce, rick abbott, they're red state governors. if the nra wants to lead, let them lead as parents would like them to lead, to talk about what can be done, not what can't be done. i hate the endless loops of talking points. bernie got into some of them when he was talking to you. do like duce, leave it yea or nay. >> i have to leave it there. that's all we have for today. thanks for watching. another one of those weeks. we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." >> announcer: you can see more end game and post game on the mtp facebook page. (vo) what if this didn't

have to happen? i didn't see it. (vo) what if we could go back? what if our car... could stop itself? in iihs front-end crash prevention testing, nobody beats the subaru impreza. not toyota. not honda. not ford. the subaru impreza. more than a car, it's a subaru. ...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors. new ensure max protein. ♪ ♪

legendary jockey víctor espinoza is insatiable when it comes to competing. ♪ ♪ so is his horse. ♪ ♪ when it comes to snacking. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ that's why he uses the chase mobile app, to pay practically anyone, at any bank. life, lived victor's way. chase. make more of what's yours. with tcalled audible.le app you can listen to the stories you love while doing the things you love, outside. binge better. audible.

with dell small businessout your technology advisors you get the one-on-one partnership you need to grow your business. the dell vostro 15 laptop. contact a dell advisor today. you might be missing something.y healthy. your eyes. that's why there's ocuvite. ocuvite helps replenish nutrients your eyes can lose as you age. it has lutein, zeaxanthin and omega-3. ocuvite. be good to your eyes.

♪ ♪ welcome to "kasie d.c." i'm kasie hunt. we are live every sunday from washington from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. eastern. tonight, breaking news. major development in the mueller investigation. as it hits its first anniversary, if you're shopping at home that's paper anniversary. plus, school turns deadly again. we'll talk about whether the will to do anything in washington has lost steam again. and i'll have an exclusive interview with former secretary of education arne duncan who says students should boycott their schools until the laws change.