it's time to actually act on my threat to broadcast the commercials. next week i'm going to try it. my thanks to donna edwards, john heilemann, the rev al sharpton. "mtp daily" starts right now with the facebook lus kbulous k has much better command of her table. >> that's not true. i've got jaud podhoretz today. >> nicolle wallace, thank you very much. if it's friday, we're bouncing around the room. tonight, clearance liquidation. the erratic new promises from the president on revoking security clearances that even trump loyalists are questioning. >> you just have to ask yourself is it too partisan. plus, why the judge in the

manafort case says he fears for his safety and the safety of the jury. and raining over his parade. the president loses a fight for a grand military parade, but is somehow still declaring victory. this is "mtp daily" and it starts right now. good evening, i'm katy tur in new york in for chuck todd. welcome to "mtp daily. " we begin tonight with russia because the president today is not backing down after retaliating against a whole range of officials tied to the russia investigation by revoking or threatening to revoke their security clearances. while speaking to reporters at the white house, he vowed more retaliation, this time singling out a current justice department official tied to the investigation. he also said he wants other

officials who are, yes, tied to the investigation to be investigated. he attacked, yes, the russia investigation for putting his campaign chief, paul manafort, on trial. he called for a criminal investigation into his political enemies based on his own conspiracy theories about, yes, the russia investigation. you might call all of that a dark day for the presidency, or you might just call it friday. here's the president vowing to strip a sitting justice department official of his security clearance. >> i think bruce ohr is a disgrace. i suspect i'll be taking it away very quickly. i think that bruce ohr is a disgrace with his wife, nellie. for him to be in the justice department and to be doing what he did, that is a disgrace. >> so who is bruce ohr? he's a justice department official that gets mentioned a lot by right-wing media. his wife worked for fusion gps, the firm which produced the

so-called dossier that president trump so often falsely claims started the russia investigation or had contact with the author of that dossier even after the fbi cut him off for leaking to the press. we don't know what the conversations consisted of or if he passed on any information to the doj but still, ohr was later demoted and the president now wants him and others investigated. >> they should be looking at the other side. they should be looking at bruce ohr and his wife, nellie, for dealing with, by the way, indirectly russians. when you look at criminality and you look at problems, take a look at what they did, including colluding with the russians, the other side. >> so if you're keeping score at home, the president wants to aggressively rout out any suspicions of wrongdoing when it comes to people that are political foils but when an ally is awaiting a jury on 18 counts

of conspiracy, that he says is a sad day for america. >> i think the whole manafort trial is very sad when you look at what's going on there. i think it's a very sad day for our country. you know what, he happens to be a very good person, and i think it's very sad what they have done to paul manafort. >> let's bring in tonight's panel, john podhoretz, an msnbc contributor and editor for "commentary" magazine. michelle goldberg and caitlin huey burns with real clear politics. the president is threatening a sitting doj official. what does that do? what message does that send to current doj officials? >> i think it's very clear this is a personalized presidency. you cross him and he will go after you whether you work for him or not, whether you are the media or not, whatever. and so this is -- everything he does is a shot across the bow for other people. he goes at brennan's security clearance to warn other people.

he goes at ohr to warn other people. it's a form of grotesque intimidation, but it is his stock in trade. >> it sounds nixonian. >> and it sounds although i'm not an attorney like obstruction of justice. it's obstruction of justice but it's so out in the open that it's almost hard to process how outrageous it is. like so much else about this administration. >> when you want to hide something, hide it in plain sight. >> like sending a message to paul manafort who obviously will make decisions about the second trial he has in september based on whether or not he might expect a presidential pardon. so he's doing all of these things that if we had a functional political system would invite a response from congress hearings if not impeachment. he's allowed to get away with this completely autocratic behavior. >> that's the thing, there has been no political consequences for trump when he acts like this. you're hearing from republican lawmakers on capitol hill saying, yeah, brennan should

have it -- his security clearance revoked. of course he's not a compelling figure among many republicans on capitol hill, but still, they don't seem at this point to be bothered by any of this. >> except for bob corker who calls it a banana republic. >> but he's in his own kind of silo on this and so the president is certainly propping up brennan and glad that he's talking this way and he's able to use him as a punching bag and also signal, as john said, to everybody else on that list. he hasn't faced consequences for that. >> lawrence tribe was on the show a little earlier saying that what this looks like to him is a slow rollout of the saturday night massacre. you just do this one by one by one. jeremy bash, who was a contributor on our network, told axios that he thinks that what's going to happen next is that donald trump will go after not just mueller and the investigative team and try to pull their security clearances. >> see, i don't believe that.

i think that -- i think that what's going on here is that he is firing blanks for the purpose of scaring people. i mean if he was going to -- this would be the worst -- >> isn't that tampering with a witness, though or intimidating a witness if you're trying to scare people? >> i'm not defending it. what i mean is he is not going to go at mueller two months, three months before the midterms. he's not going to do that. >> paul ryan -- paul ryan made that mistake by saying that donald trump was just trolling people by saying he was going to revoke the clearance of john brennan, and then he did. >> right. but again, revoking the clearance of brennan is itself not a major thing, so these officials after they are in government are allow ed as a courtesy to keep their security clearances in part in case somebody wants to consult with them in time of crisis. >> so who is he hurting, brennan

or his own security agencies? >> he says i'll go at brennan or i might go at you. if it means a lot to you to have the security clearance, which i don't really understand why it would. like no one -- you know, these guys on this list aren't going to be called by john bolton to come into the situation room to talk foreign policy. it's just like a perk that's now being withdrawn pettily but if it means a lot to the person that has the perk, it may be effect i've. >> but it sends a message to a lot of other people. there are a lot of people who worked in the government who used their security clearances in contracting jobs that they get after leaving government that they would be ineligible for if he decided to pull their security clearances because they criticized him. i mean i don't know if it's such a big deal for john brennan, but it's institutionally a big deal, that's why you see 13 former heads of cia including republicans and democrats, people who are not known for

getting involved in the political fray signing this extraordinary letter. it's why you see that extraordinary rebuke from mcraven, right? they consider this an attack institutionally. >> you set this up so let's put it on the sdrecreen. it's an unbroken chain of intelligence chiefs going back two decades. they said the president's action regarding john brennan and the threats of similar action against other former official has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech. we have never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool as was done in this case. by the way, we expect that number, that's 13, we expect that number to go up to somewhere around 55 or 60 potentially later today. you mentioned mcraven. again, he was the architect of the bin laden raid. here is what he said. through your actions you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage, and worst of all divided us as a nation. if you think for a moment that

your mccarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. and he's saying, please revoke my security clearance too, it would be an honor. this is the architect of the bin laden raid. >> becoming a badge of honor, which is a really troubling statement in and of itself about the times we live in. mcraven is not like john brennan in terms of being a controversial figure among some people. he's not spoken out about this president, he's revered among nearly every constituency that there is. the fact that he is jumping into the fray i think speaks to your point of how serious they're taking it. but if we think that this is going to deter trump, it's not going to in the least. remember in 2016 -- >> i brought this up earlier today. >> that those 50 or so republican national security and intelligence officials who wrote that op-ed, open letter condemning then candidate trump, that did nothing to deter him. in fact he is constantly fueled by his critics. >> precisely. he enjoys the fight. listen to donald trump.

>> what do you say -- >> there's no silence, if anything, i'm giving him a bigger voice. many people don't know who he is and now he has a bigger voice and that's okay with me because i like taking on voices like that. >> so why is he relishing this fight? >> what, with brennan? >> i'm going push back against everybody, do what i want, revoke security clearances. if you'd like to write an open letter that says that i'm acting more like an authoritarian, go ahead. >> look, this is the trump playbook dating back to his advice from his lawyer, roy cohn, that you never apologize and you always aggress. anyone comes at you, you come at them. lebron james says something in an interview, you tweet about lebron james. you never let anything go. you never let any criticism pass you. >> so why do republicans cheer him on for that? >> this is where his attack -- this is where his attacks on the

media and his attacks on the critics become extremely corrosive and you see their actual impact. so he's lumping all of his critics in with what john brennan has done and how he has acted, which is not true. >> why do republicans cheer this on? why do they enjoy it? >> well, you have to divide the republicans who cheer it on from the republicans who are living in kind of shocked silence. >> why don't they speak out against it? >> because of mark sanford losing his seat, because of bob corker and jeff flake not running for re-election, because they crossed him. >> why doesn't jeff -- jeff flake and bob corker and some of these people who are on the way out could do more than just send out sad tweets. >> right. well, that's a whole second question. >> they could go with democrats on certain bills. if they really wanted to push back, they could do more than just say i think this is a banana republic or write a book that trashes trump and then vote in line with him. >> but they're conservatives and

they're not going to vote for liberal legislation in order to send a symbolic message. >> there's legislation that's not all liberal legislation that could send a message. >> there is no legislation coming out on the senate floor from mitch mccaonnell that they could vote for that is being introduced by democrats. you have the impotence of the republicans who are horrified by this but think what am i going to do and this is just a tidal wave that's rolling over the country and i don't have the power to stop it. and then you have the ones who love trump owning the libs. they love his aggression and that's his base. now, that base is there. the big question for trump and the republicans going into november is who else is going to vote for him other than them. >> given that, let's play devil's advocate here. let's look at this with a different lens.

the i.g. said comey mishandled the clinton investigation. the i.g. said mccabe lacked candor. the i.g. said strzok tarnished the fbi's reputation. bruce ohr was demoted after talking to a source he probably shouldn't have been talking to. when you look at that and take it altogether, do you say, hey, listen, there's a problem with the fbi? these are high-ranking officials at the fbi, the director, the deputy director, a top agent, an associate deputy a.g. all demoted? >> so obviously there are problems at the fbi, but this cover story that the problem with the fbi is that it was too harsh on hillary clinton and reopened the investigation in this way that hurt her campaign -- >> it's the i.g. saying it. >> i understand. but the idea that that's the pretext, right, so already legitimate criticisms about comey's handling of the hillary clinton e-mail investigation and the idea that that is the pretext for his firing or for his attacks on the fbi is insane

and utter bad faith. and similarly, you have, yes, of course -- i think that if you have an i.g. investigation into any big institution, you will probably come up with people who have made mistakes. in this case they find people that have made mistakes and then they go above and beyond the recommended punishment for those mistakes. >> this is the director, deputy director, top agent, associating a.g., it's not just people, they're pretty high up. >> well, they didn't recommend that he fire strzok. that wasn't in -- so i think that a lot of this is a pretext, if he was really upset about the mishandling of classified information, there are a lot of other people -- >> i just question how many people -- i know there's this bubble thinking that which is really what surprised people in 2016. i think a certain way so i can't imagine anybody else thinking another way and i wonder if there's a solid segment of the population out there, independents, who look at this and look at it through the other lens and say, hey listen, i think there's some shady stuff going on and i think what's

happening to donald trump is not quite fair. >> this is where i think the president continuously steps over any news that could work in his favor, right? a lot of these actions that you just describe certainly speak for themselves and the president continuously weighs in on realtime and looks like he's interfering and becomes political. if he had revoked john brennan's security clearance last year when he took over, i don't think anybody would be raising alarm bells about it. the way in which we're here and the way in which he is doing this raises the big questions about how political it is. >> this goes right to the comey thing. so comey gets fired. i think all of us at this table might say, well, justifiable potentially. i said the minute that he gave the press conference in july that he should be fired about why hillary -- he said hillary was so terrible but didn't charge. that this was unprecedented and

really bad. if you then say comey was presiding over an fbi that was misbehaving. he misbehaved and other people misbehaved, that would be fine. but trump says to the russians he's crazy and i let him go. he says to lester holt -- >> i think thinking about the russia investigation. >> that's exactly what he did this morning. >> with "the wall street journal" with brennan, i don't like the russia investigation. so you're right, he steps on it. i think it's because he enjoys dominating the headlines for good, bad or worse, probably for worse. next, did the president send a signal to paul manafort today about a coming pardon? we've got the latest in the trial of the president's former campaign chief, next. coming up, a parade of blame after the president's military parade dreams are dashed. some cash back cards send you on a journey to get to your bonus cash back. first they make you sign up for bonus cash back and it's only on a few categories. and when those categories change, you gotta sign up again.

when does it end?! with the capital one quicksilver® card, you earn unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase, everywhere. it's like a cash back oasis. what's in your wallet?

this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's.

this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪ you might or joints.hing for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

sfx: [cell phone dialing] no. no, no, no, no, no. cancel. cancel. please. aaagh! being in the know is a good thing. that's why discover will alert you if your social security number is found on any one of thousands of risky sites. welcome back. paul manafort's tax and bank fraud trial is the jury isn't ready to deliver a verdict yet, they have just gone home for the day. asking to be released early on this summer friday. and while the jury was deliberating today, president trump said this when asked about whether he would pardon paul manafort. >> i don't talk about that now. i don't talk about that. i think the whole manafort trial is very sad. when you look at what's going on there, i think it's a very sad day for our country. he worked for me for a very short period of time, but you know what, he happens to be a very good person. >> a very good person who is

facing 18 counts of tax and bank fraud and could spend the rest of his life in jail if the jury convicts him. joining us now, nbc news national security and justice reporter julia ainsley from outside the court house along with chuck rosenberg, msnbc contributor. julia, even though today ended a bit early, it was an interesting day. the jury asked to go home early and the judge announced that he is getting death threats and he's concerned about the well-being of the jurors as well. >> reporter: that's right, katy. so right now we're in a weekend recess. they'll come back at 9:30 on monday to continue these deliberations. what's clear so far is that this is a jury that wants to take its time. it's a complicated case, it's not like you can -- the case of a smoking gun and someone being in one place at one time. this is more complicated when it comes to tax and bank fraud.

there are 18 counts. some are conspiracy to commit the crime and some are committing the crime itself. the questions they asked yesterday, particularly the requirements for filing on foreign bank accounts, it's clear they want to be really careful. they also have mountains of documents, even more evidence than we saw during the trial so that's a lot to go through. we saw people coming out for periodic breaks, but for the most part they stayed inside all day going over this. so it makes sense they would want a break. it seems one juror had an event they had to get to so they left by 5:00 today. and now we are hearing that the judge is having threats. i'm not sure if they're death threats, what kind they are, but definitely threats to his security. he has a u.s. marshal in the courtroom now who apparently escorts him around to secure his safety. it's for that reason that he does not want to reveal the names of the jurors even after the verdict comes. he wants to protect them because he said he's been surprised by the level of attention this case has gotten. >> julia ainsley, julia, thank

you very much. chuck, let's get into this a little bit more. when you're hearing that the jury seems to be taking its time in this case, if you're a prosecutor, are you nervous? >> no. prosecutors took their time to lay out a methodical case. the jury is taking its time to review the methodical case they laid out. one of the questions they asked the other day struck me as really interesting along those lines. they wanted the judge to tell them of the big stack of exhibits they had, which counts did they pertain to. and the judge of course said i can't do that, you have to do that. so they're going to match exhibits to counts in the indictment and try to make sense of it. they're taking their time to get it right. >> harry litman was on with us yesterday and he said there's zero chance of an acquittal. would you agree of that? >> there's zero chance that i will flap my hands and fly home. there is a nonzero chance of an acquittal. i think it's very likely they will convict. i would be surprised if they

didn't. >> i know that you don't get into the politics of this all but if they do come back with a kwitle -- acquittal, what will that do? >> that investigation is is predicated on facts and law and those don't change my virtue of an acquittal. it matters a lot that the prosecutors win their first public trial. i'm sure they're feeling the pressure. i'm sure that they want to bring home what they believe is a just and guilty verdict. but facts and law don't change. >> the president today said he wouldn't talk about pardoning manafort. but he did make a point of calling him a good guy and said it was a sad day for this country that he was on trial. >> in the same sentence that he said he would not talk about manafort, he talked about manafort. that seems kind of odd. was he signaling to manafort?

possibly. it's clear to everybody involved that the president has that authority. >> if you're his defense lawyer, manafort's defense lawyer, and you're hearing that, are you thinking, hey, this could be something we can hold out hope for? >> sure, you always hold out hope, i gather. i'm sure they're also holding out hope for an acquittal. on that point, please remember i think it's important for your viewers to know, to be acquitted in a federal trial, the jury has to be unanimous, 12-0, just like they have to be yunanimous to convict. running the table to get acquitted on 18 counts seems unlikely to me. >> this is a financial crimes case. we would not be paying attention if paul manafort wasn't the former campaign chairman and if this wasn't done by the special counsel investigating russia. it is a bit of a side issue for robert mueller's team. it doesn't fit neatly into the russia investigation which is why i think people are looking

at this trial and looking for any hints. the fact that a couple of bench discussions were sealed, i think there are folks out there or there are folks out there looking at that and saying that's because maybe gates' testimony pertains to the investigation going forward and are wondering how this trial might tie into everything else. >> so the case itself, the things with which manafort is charged don't seem to be at the heart of the russia interference investigation. but i think this is an important but, katy. what does manafort know based on his time in the trump campaign and in the trump orbit. is it appropriate to charge him with the stuff? absolutely. why? because he committed those crimes. how do we know that? well, the documentary evidence is pretty strong, but they want something else. >> are prosecutors trying to turn him to get him to talk? >> prosecutors are trying to turn anybody who has truthful

information that will further an investigation. so i hate to turn that question on you, but if he has truthful information that will help the investigation, you bet they are. >> we're not even sure that they are trying to turn him, though. it could just be -- >> they could just be trying to convict him and it could be that he has no information about anyone else, but that strikes me as unlikely. >> paul manafort, when he took the job, there has been coming out in this court trial evidence that he had financial problems. he was late on his payments to american express. there was talk about the money he owed the russian oligarch when he took on the trump campaign job and didn't take any money for that job. i know we've talked about this before, but it does seem like it's something that would be -- if i were a federal prosecutor, and i'm not, but if i were a federal prosecutor, would make my ears perk up. i'd want to know more about that. >> you'd be a good federal prosecutor and they absolutely want to know more. if they convict him, they will

still try to get him to turn. we're willing as prosecutors to take cooperation at many different stages. ideally, it's much, much earlier than this. but after a conviction, an i believe there will be one, at least on some large number of counts, he's willing to cooperate, will the prosecutors take it? you bet. >> chuck rosenberg, it's so great to have you. >> it's a pleasure, katy. >> enjoy your weekend. some breaking news before we go to break. we were expecting more former intelligence officials to join in rebuking the president's recent move to revoke john brennan's security clearance. moments ago 60 former cia officials put out a statement backing john brennan saying that it is their firm belief that the country will be weakened if there is a political litmus test applied before seasoned experts are allowed to share their views. still ahead, steve bannon is back with a new plan to remake the country, and it's in president trump's image. welcome to the place...

where people go to learn about their medicare options before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why...medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. this part is up to you. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today to request this free decision guide. and learn about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients.

do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! so call unitedhealthcare today and ask for your free decision guide. oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance.

welcome back. former white house chief strategist steve bannon is hoping to make a comeback in trump world. back in january, after bannon was making anti-trump statements in michael wolff's book, the president said in a statement that when bannon was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. but that apparently is not stopping steve bannon from launching a pro-trump political

group aimed at helping republicans keep control of the house by framing the midterms as a vote on impeachment. here's what he told msnbc's ari melber in an exclusive interview airing tonight. >> this is an up or down vote on president trump. this will come as a referendum on him. he permeates the entire political culture. i think those around him that are telling him that, hey, it's okay to lose the house, you can work with the democrats and you can run against a democratic house in 2020 is bad advice. >> yesterday when i asked former trump political advisor sam nunberg who's part of bannon's new group whether bannon is back in touch with the president, sam said he did not know. we will see what bannon says tonight about that and a whole lot more. you can see the exclusive interview with steve bannon tonight at 10:00 right here on msnbc. we will be right back.

welcome back. everyone loves a parade.

that is a parade that doesn't cost as much as $92 million. and so with a soaring price tag, president trump pulled the plug on the military parade he want wanted so badly for this fall. who did he blame? the city that would host the parade, tweeting the local politicians who run washington, d.c., poorly, know a windfall when they see it. when asked to giff us a price for holding a great celebratory military parade, they wanted a number so ridiculously high that i circled it. washington, d.c.'s mayor responded with her own tweet. yep, i'm muriel bowser, mayor of washington, d.c. the local politician who finally got through to the reality star in the white house with the realities, $21.6 million of parades/events/demonstrations in trump america. sad. with me now is nbc news national security and military reporter, courtney kube. why so expensive, courtney? >> well, the d.o.d. component,

and all of these are pretty much estimates. even the numbers that the d.c. government put forward are estimates of what they think they would need. the parade itself hasn't really been that defined other than what they expect to be the route. but what it's going to involve, how many troops, all of that is still in the estimates range. it's going to cost a lot of money for security and basic things like bringing all these troops in, for fuel, for the aircraft flyovers, and, you know, and then any kind of infrastructure that's needed, whether it's bringing in facilities for people who would be watching the parade and then any cleanup after the fact. so this is even from the beginning we had been hearing this would be in the millions of dollars. but then our colleague at cnbc broke the story yesterday that the upper range was actually more than $90 million, which of course is three or four times what we had been hearing out of this administration so far, katy. >> the initial price tag was $12 million. mick mulvaney, the budget director, said between $10 and

$30 million. the president is using that extra money that i guess he says he now has on fighter jets, right? >> well, probably. there's going to be a new f-35 contract coming soon, but i don't know if it will be that clear cut that they'll move it directly over to buying new jets. >> let's talk about privatizing the war in afghanistan. nbc news had some exclusive reporting today that president trump is showing new interest in erik prince's plan to privatize the war in afghanistan. prince wants to replace troops with private military contractors and contractors would work for a special u.s. envoy who would report directly to the president. this would completely circumstancircumvent the pentagon, completely circumvent james mattis. >> of course and this isn't the first time we heard this plan surface. last summer when there were weeks and weeks of discussion about the south asian strategy, it was how to deal with the

political situation, political and diplomatic in afghanistan and pakistan as well. at that time, this plan or a very similar version of it surfaced and there were reports that president trump was interested in hearing about it. you know, officials who we spoke with said his interest in it never really died over the last year but it resurged again just recently. erik prince, the founder of blackwater, put out a video, a 10-minute very highly produced video where he talked about his vision for how private security contractors could take over the bulk of the mission of what the u.s. military were doing on the ground in afghanistan. president trump again has -- this is an idea that has been in the back of his head all this time and we're told that it's starting to, you know, resurface. the real question is, is it something that is actually plausible. we know there are a lot of senior administration officials who are against this and would push hard, both in the pentagon and at the state department and in the u.s. military, push against this idea. there's also this pre-existing presidential decree in

afghanistan put in place by president karzai that really restricts what security, foreign security contractors can do on the ground there. that would most likely restrict this plan from actually going into effect unless there were some kind of change, unless the u.s. were really to push for this idea with the current administration in afghanistan. >> let's not forget that erik prince has a history of private contracting work in war zones and it going wrong. blackwater 2007 shot at iraqi civilians in baghdad. 17 iraqis were killed, 20 were injured. blackwater employees said they were acting in self-defense. it was a major controversy at the time. it made the nation really question whether or not we want to have private contractors, missionaries, doing the dirty work essentially in wars that we're fighting abroad. >> and it's not just blackwater. there are other security contractors. one of the ones that led to the presidential decree by president

karzai was another contractor that had a contract for training some of the afghan police, the military and police. there were congressional hearings, there was a report by the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction that talked about just how it didn't work out and they used some pretty strong language in saying that it wasn't a successful mission. so they have certainly had a checkered past. the real question now is, is president trump really leaning in the direction of doing this? we know that he has pushed some of his administration, senior members of administration to really show progress on the ground in afghanistan an it's a tough time for that. the taliban are not really on their heels in a lot of areas. they have spoken the ability to carry out spectacular attacks just this week. they have shown the ability to attack afghan military bases. so it's a difficult time if they're having to show president trump that in fact the world is winning the war in afghanistan. >> and erik prince's argument is

we've been in this war 17 years, conventional tactics are not working, why not try something new. courtney kube, thanks so much. happy weekend. >> thanks, katy. up next, bill nelson said russians hit florida's election systems. was he right? if you have psoriasis, ... little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla . it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have  a history of depression or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.

i'm not really a, i thought wall street guy.ns. what's the hesitation? eh, it just feels too complicated, you know? you know, at td ameritrade, we can walk you through your options trades step by step until you're comfortable. i could be up for that. step-by-step options trading support from td ameritrade welcome back. today in "meet the midterms" florida democratic senator bill nelson has faced a lot of

criticism since warning last week that russian hackers had, quote, penetrated some of his state's county voting systems. it turns out he was not making things up. nelson is in a tough race for re-election in florida against republican governor rick scott who suggested there wasn't evidence to nelson's claim and blasted nelson as irresponsible. the top florida elections official, also republican, said he had seen no indication nelson's claim was true. the florida secretary of state and president of the florida state association of supervisors of elections wrote to nelson yesterday that we are aware of the threat and the need to stay vigilant, but if you have specific information on a confirmed intrusion, we urgently need you to disclose that information to us so we can take action. but now three people familiar with the intelligence tell nbc news's ken dilanian that there is a classified basis for nelson's assertion. they say nelson was talking about intelligence related to

ongoing fallout from the 2016 hack of a florida elections vendor. nelson declined to comment, but this all shows how secrecy, politics and divisions between state and federal systems can get in the way of a unified response to the russian threat. we'll be right back. ♪ -morning. -morning. -what do we got? -keep an eye on that branch. might get windy. have a good shift. fire pit. last use -- 0600. i'd stay close. morning. ♪ get ready to switch. protected by flo. should say, "protected by alan and jamie." -right? -should it? when you bundle home and auto... run, alan! ...you get more than just savings. you get 'round-the-clock protection. you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia.

add-on advantage. 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. time now for "the lid." the panel is back. guys, let's talk about kellyanne conway, not necessarily the drama between her and her husband that was documented in "the washington post," but something she said this morning when she was asked about john brennan. listen. >> why is everybody so obsessed with the president of the united states that they can't even begin or finish a sentence without mentioning his name five times. it's kind of weird and it's infecting people on the news now who fancy themselves security

experts. >> why would we ever want to talk about the commander in chief every day? the president, he's the president of the united states, first of all. second of all, this is a president who is extremely vocal. he tweets several times a day. he came out he came out to talk to the press today because he wanted to. this is a president who has command over a news cycle. and inserts himself in nearly every situation from policy to politics to the nfl even. >> just what a weird thing for an adviser to say, you're so obsessed with him. it's just such an odd, odd, right? >> yeah, it's bizarre. she is a bizarre person, as testified by that "washington post" profile. but just the fact -- i mean, to me it suggests a certain exasperation. right? if you've gone that far to the end of the line of defending him, that you're saying why do you want to ask me about that man? to me that suggests like a certain brittleness in the

people who are called upon to apologize for him day after day. >> you know, i think it's, with her, she just looks for any opening she can, i mean, any way to shame, demean, push back on any question she gets to spin it and that is like the, i guess, the last best thing she had in her pocket. >> isn't it one of those things that's sort of like a high school, like you're -- you're so obsessed with him. like maybe you have a crush on him. >> you must love him. >> why are you so obsessed with him if you hate him so much? it's that quality. it is -- but there is some -- because of the way trump himself is so inconstant, everybody who speaks on his behalf in the administration has somehow been liberated from the ordinary shackles of having to say things that are consistent from one day to the next, or that follow a set line of argument. like, nobody would say the most

important person -- >> or they're true. >> why are you obsessed with the most important person in the world? what's the matter with you? whereas, if you don't pay attention to something that he would want you to pay attention to, kellyanne would be the first person to say why are they ignoring -- >> she was talking to white house reporters, why are you so obsessed with donald trump? >> she was making the point, why is john brennan so obsessed with him. why can't john brennan stop talking about him. people on tv news who fancy themselves security experts. the former head of the cia is actually a security expert. >> yeah, and it's not going to stop them from talking either, right? this is the most vocal president, at least in realtime we've had in recent memory. he is the leader of the free world. >> oh, no, he's not. you're not the leader of the free world. but sorry. >> well, by default, he's the leader of the free world. >> angela merkel is the leader

of the free world. >> he's the most important person in the world in politics now. he is very vocal. i agree with you this does express a level of exasperation among his aides that they haven't have control over. >> he's not standing up for dmoi democracy. >> she's a junior player in a block of authoritarian countries. >> people in the european union are no longer looking at him ta leader anymore. >> right, he's a block that includes vladimir putin, he's kind of part of kind of an axis power. >> well, hold on, that's -- >> it's worse than that in a certain way. not that that's not the worst thing you could have said because it's about the worst thing you could say about him. >> he's not rounding people up and murdering them without any, you know, due process. >> he doesn't really like to. >> i don't think you can say that definitively.

>> i do think that if he's not the leader of the free world, there isn't a leader of the free world. it turns into a kind of sinkhole in which the necessary efforts to defend the world order or the -- there is no world order without the most important, richest and most powerful country in the world trying to maintain some semblance of it. >> is it a country where saudi arabia can intimidate canada with human rights record. >> omarosa, 200 tapes, caitlin, last word on this, 200 tapes, maybe. >> and trickling out the way she is trickling them out. i am wondering, out of all of this, how else the president is going to respond to this. during the first iteration of the book and the tour he talked about these -- or issued these security clearance deck laiatla.

what else is he going to do in response to her? can she maintain that news cycle. >> vanity fair said he wants her arrested, speaking of that -- >> speaking of rounding people up. >> john, michelle and caitlin, guys, happy friday, we're almost there. we are five minutes away from friday. next up, a fish out of water. ♪ ♪

♪ let your perfect drive come together at the lincoln summer invitation sales event. get 0% apr on select 2018 lincoln models plus $1,000 bonus cash.

this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's. in case you missed it, a major bummer for about 30,000 fans of the band fish.

they were supposed to be sharing in the groove right now and new york for the band's three-day concert festival called curve ball. the whole festival split open and melt. there was a terrible storm, a divided sky and the wind blew high. by the time the storm was gone, the health department said there wasn't enough clean water for the show. the last thing anyone wanted was to come down with disease. do you believe that? some water in the sky makes water on earth undrinkable? the band was already there. locals we're cheering, we're glad, glad, glad that you've arrived. the band was about to take the stage for a sound check, when authorities said don't take another step. sadly, fish had to tell everyone, this has all been wonderful but now i'm on my way. there are probably fans holding out hope this horrible situation is corrected. but remember, you don't get a refund if you overpray. for those fans who suddenly have nothing to do this weekend, here's a suggestion, let's go

out to dinner and see a movie. that's all for tonight. we'll be back on monday with more "meet the press daily." and this sunday chuck will interview former cia director john brennan. because, if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." "the beat" with ari melber starts right now. it was another day of deliberations in paul manafort's trial today. we can report jurors are heading home now without delivering a verdict tonight. what does that mean? we'll get into it. also tonight, an expert on trump's russian money trail is here with a new book and new reporting. later in the show we will air a preview of my interview with steve bannon. the first time he's ever faced a journalists questions on msnbc. we begin with our top story, donald trump's clash with intelligence leaders, many across the spectrum now say