on days like today, on any day, harry, robert, glenn and tim we're nothing without your reporting and analysis. that does it for us. mtp daily starts right now. hi, chuck. >> hi, nicole. >> where in the world are you? >> i'm out in l.a., your good friend adam nigurney, i have him on set. if it's tuesday, this message will self-obstruct in ten seconds. ♪ >> see, here we are. welcome in to "mtp daily." welcoming to a fast moving day surrounding the president. there's a couple corruption stories we're never going to get

to this hour, that's how much is on the docket today. we talked for months about the president and his allies possibly obstructing justice and doing it, frankly, in plain sight. the new york times dropped an exhaustive detailed look inside trump's two-year war on the multiple investigations. the times puts it, the investigation reveals the extent of an even more sustained, more secretive assault by mr. trump on the machinery of federal law enforcement. there is a lot in this piece. the president may have tried to interfere with another federal investigation. this one going on in the southern district of new york, over the hush money payments in the 2016. he pressured matt whitaker to put jeffrey better man in charge of the sdny investigation.

the president today called that report fake news. multiple people familiar with the cases says it's correct to describe him as a trump ally. using his acting attorney general to his benefit does fit a pattern. there was the firing of james comey over the russia investigation. or telling comey to let michael flynn off the hook. that took place before he fired comey. or there was the ordering of the white house counsel to fire robert mueller. or there was calling the fbi's raid on michael cohen's office, an attack on other country. or calling jeff sessions to end the mueller probe. both publicly and apparently privately. or dangling pardons in plain sight. that does not even include dictating the misleading statement for his son about the trump tower meeting which isn't technically a crime, lying to the media that is. lying to mueller, that's another

story. any of these instances on their own would be difficult to prove as obstruction of justice. put them all together and they lead to one simple question. for a man who says he's done nothing wrong, he sure seems to be worried about people finding something that he did do wrong. with me now, is nbc news justice correspondent pete williams, also joining the crew, matt miller for the justice department. and now an msnbc justice and security analyst, barbara mcquaid. and also frank nicluzy. b. williams, let me start with you. what did the times find? and where should we hold off on what we've been able to confirm and not confirm here? >> well, in terms of the contact with matt whitaker as attorney general. a couple things about that, first of all, the times says

that jeff berman, the u.s. attorney in new york had recused himself. actually, that's not quite accurate. u.s. attorneys under the rules cannot recuse themselves. he was recused by a senior official at the justice department because of the fact that he was not appointed by the president. he was the president's apparent choice for the job. he was put in there in an acting capacity by jeff sessions. when that term ended, he was appointed to fill out the term by a federal judge. that's how it works under the rules if there's no nominee acted on it. that's how berman got the job. he had been in a law firm with rudy giuliani, perhaps that's how the trump administration knew about him. he had been a prosecutor in the new york office, the southern district of new york before. he had a pretty high profile. the justice department asked about this today, gave us the following statement. it says it notes that whitaker said this, it quotes the language -- the words he spoke

when he testified ten days or so ago before the house judiciary committee. at no time has the white house asked for, nor have i provided any promises or commitments concerning the special counsel's investigation or any other investigation. and they say, mr. whitaker stands by that testimony. so you can make of that what you will. he was specifically asked during the hearing whether the president ever asked him to do anything about the cohen investigation, whether they talked about it at all. and he gave an answer that he gave frequently during that hearing, i'm not going to describe my conversations with the president. >> pete, is this the first that sdny has heard about a potential obstruction into that michael cohen case? was that news to sdny today as far as we know? >> well, i don't know whether there's an investigation of any obstruction involving that case. i would hesitate to describe it that way as a legal matter.

certainly, they're aware, these questions have been asked before whitaker appeared before the house. jerry nadler said, we're going to ask you about this. this question has been out there. barbara mcquaid, let me ask you. given this report, would today's report alone be enough for sdny to launch an obstruction probe or add that on to their current investigation of president and that aspect of the investigation? how would that work? >> i don't know that it would. the fact that he asked jeffrey berman be overseeing this case. i don't know that that's enough. you really need the element of a corrupt intent. and it seems like this is sort of the way president trump rolls. he likes to have loyal people overseeing and making decisions, he believes they will make decisions favorable to him. he didn't ask that anybody be

done corruptly, that anybody change a decision, not bring charges against him. so i don't know that that alone is going to be enough. as you say, the cumulative effect of all of these things, i think at some point does beg the question. at what point does it become obstruction of justice. >> let me run the list with you, if you don't mind. which one of these is the most troubling. and then, is it the firing of comey. asking comey to let flynn off the hook. is it the supposed report that he asked to get mueller fired. is it trying to call on sessions publicly in the investigation? is there any one of those that's more lethal? or at some point do you take all of this and open a separate investigation? >> yeah, i don't know that any one is any more lethal than the others, i think all of them together start to feel like there is some purpose here. the tricky part of proving an obstruction of justice count isn't usually what the person

did, it's what the person thought. proving that corrupt intent, you can never read a person's mind. the way a jury gets strucked about this, because you can never read a person's mind, you must make reasonable inferences based on the totality of the circumstances, you should consider all of the things the person said and did. and so i think the cumulative effect is what is used to make that reasonable inference into whether the president had a corrupt intent. i think the more you add on to the pile, the more likely it is that someone's going to look at the totality of the circumstances and find a corrupt intent. >> how would you go about investigating this at this point, frank? >> matt whitaker may find himself a fact witness now this is someone who is still walking the halls of doj as a special adviser. the interesting part of this, you can start investigating phone logs at the white house, if they even exist.

you can look at matt whitaker's intake if he's documenting phone calls from the president. you want to talk to whitaker, what this is going to lead to is some likely claim of executive privilege. if this was a conversation with the president, he could attempt to assert privilege or at least the president could, and that would get interesting. don't be surprised if the southern district does attempt to talk too matt whitaker and get the facts. there's a lot of -- it depends here. was it asked in the form of a question? can we get the u.s. attorney to handle this? no, sir, he's recused. or was it more of a direct order that was ignored? those facts make a difference. >> frank, does it make a difference whether he's attorney general? >> is it less criminal if he was just simply talking to the chief of staff, to the former attorney general before he was acting a.g.? >> i think there's little distinction there, if in fact

there's criminal conversation. there's investigation there, i think it's about work product provided to the president and they'll argue for a privilege there as well. >> matt miller, walk us through justice, how often -- i'm sure it's not often if at all. but can you walk-through a time where you remember someone going, there should be a different supervisor for this investigation? how did those conversations go? >> that's fairly routine. eric holder recused himself for a number of investigations. i think the biggest one he recused from is the john edwards investigation. which he was confused from. he had vetted him as a potential vice presidential nominee. there were others he recused himself from, because his law firm, when he's in private practice had represented someone. it is a fairly common thing, and it's a fairly common thing for people down the line to recuse themselves from investigation. what is unusual, of course, and

beyond unusual. this kind of thing never happened to the justice department while i was there, and i would dare say didn't happen in previous administrations going back, except for nixon. it's for the white house or someone else who is the subject of a criminal investigation. to weigh-in on the justice department. of course, it's more so for the white house, because the president has the hiring and firing power. implicit in this push to whitaker for the u.s. attorney in the southern district to unrecuse himself. a term i've never heard before. is the implicit ability to remove matt whitaker from office. >> frank, since you're the former guy, the president's constant haranging of the fbi and questioning the fbi motives, the specific attacks on andrew mccabe and his wife, when do all of the attacks on the fbi and

law enforcement look like an obstruction case? frank, i'll start with you, and then barbara, i'd like you to follow up on that as well. >> there's no question the damage has been done. let's go back to the conversation we've had with others. this is about totality of the circumstances. and we know that mueller is looking at obstruction issues, because we're hearing reports at least, that people who have been questioned by him, have been asked about that kind of thing, so if you put the firing of comey into that mix, now you put the treatment of mccabe, you put questioning of mccabe in the oval office about how he voted and how he's leaning toward something and whether he resisted comey or not. all of that public tweeting, all of the posts, all of the statements become part of the argument that this president is on a daily basis, trying to undermine and erode an investigation in which he is a party and an interest.

>> given the fact that the president went out of the chain of command to appoint an acting attorney general that was not in the chain of command for another reason in that he didn't want rod rosenstein to be it. i know in isolation, that's not any proof, but is that part of the larger picture here? >> well, i think so, depending on the reason, if you can find someone that says the reason he wanted matt whitaker to be there instead of rod rosenstein is because he was concerned rosenstein would seek and find the truth and it would be damaging to president interrupt, he wanted someone there instead who might protect him. if that's the purpose, that could be evidence of obstruction of justice. one thing that's important, even if matt wit kerr was in agreement with such a plan, it's enough that a person attempted to obstruct justice, even if he's efforts are not successful. that could be one more piece on that pile of evidence. >> matt miller, how does the whistle blowing process work

there? could the i.g. be investigating this at this point and we don't know yet? >> he could be. i think the bigger issue here is probably congress. one of the lines that i didn't think -- we haven't talked about yet in this new york times report, it's not the conversation between whitaker and the president. whitaker talked to associates of the department of justice and said to them, there needs to be more adult supervision of sdny. the judiciary committee is going to ask about those conversations and those are not protected by an executive privilege claim. you may see either jerry ed that letter, the chairman of the judiciary committee or maybe someone in the senate asked the inspector general to ask this question. i doubt he would launch it on his own. members of -- there was the justice department staff there, that would have to cooperate with those investigations. >> matt, barbara, frank. i really appreciate it, like i said, there's a couple

corruption probes we're not going to get to today, including the mike flynn saudi/nukes story. let alone what's going on with betsy devos. coming up, the latest bombshell from andrew mccabe. he says he told top members of congress from both parties that there, indeed, he had opened a counter intelligence investigation against the president. and no one objected. that's next. every day, visionaries are creating the future. ( ♪ ) so, every day, we put our latest technology and vast expertise to work. ( ♪ ) the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, affordably and on-time. (ringing) ( ♪ ) the future only happens with people who really know how to deliver it.

the future only happens we know that when you're spending time with the grandkids every minute counts. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why we show you exactly when we'll be there. saving you time, so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪

wat t. rowe price, hundreds of our experts go beyond the numbers to examine investment opportunities firsthand. like a biotech firm that engineers a patient's own cells to fight cancer. this is strategic investing. because your investments deserve the full story. t. rowe price. invest with confidence.

the apparent pile of the obstruction of evidence -- the former fbi acting chief dropped an enormous bombshell into a counter intelligence investigation about whether the president was working for russia. mccabe spoke to savannah guthrie

this morning. >> i know you and other members of your team briefed the so-called gang of eight. these are the leaders in congress in the days after comey was fired about the russia investigation. it would have been the majority leader of the senate. did you tell them that you had opened a counter intelligence investigation into president trump? >> the purpose of the briefing was to let our congressional leadership know exactly what we've been doing. >> did you tell congress? >> and i told congress what we had done? >> did anyone object? >> that's the important part here, savannah, no one objected. not on legal grounds, not on constitutional grounds and not based on facts. >> you may do a double take on that revelation. we went back to confirm he said what he said. a mccabe spokesperson said in so many words, we heard him

correctly. none of the republicans objected mifrp mcconnell, paul ryan, devin nunes. none of them was seeking to object. that didn't leak out until recently? the president's lawyers remain in the dark about it the whole time? let's get to tonight's panel, alfonso agular. jennifer palmieri, former obama and clinton communications director. and adam nigurney. frank, let me start with you you're our fbi expert here. you open that kind of investigation, what ended -- would it have surprised you, had the director of the fbi not briefed the gang of eight in congress about something as sensitive as investigating the president of the united states?

>> they would have to. i have briefed senate committees on far less. the rules are, that any significant counter intelligence operation, opening of the espionage case has to be briefed. at some point it would have to be briefed. i will tell you this, from my own experience, there should be documented evidence of that transcript, the briefing, at least the notes from either their side or from the fbi side somewhere that those notes of what was briefed are going to be documented. >> i was going to say, you say that, do you wonder if maybe folks didn't hear andy mccabe right at the time? it is shocking that something like this didn't leak out. >> yeah, i'm surprised it hasn't leaked out. i wouldn't want to go back to the date that allegedly occurred and i want to see people's behavior right after that. what did we see members do that were briefed? what public statements were made, what attempts were made to

get at evidence right after that, a time line needs to be constructed to see what was going on. >> look, the fact that you have devin nunes in that room, if this took place as mccabe said it took place, and you think about all of the ways that devin nunes seemed to help the white house in and around that time and after. that's suddenly a pretty -- >> maybe he didn't hear it, maybe there's some other mitigating circumstances. >> i don't know why anyone has tried to receive it. it undercuts the republican's discussion on this. >> jennifer palmieri, you've had your share of run ins with the is department, the fbi, your frustrations of when they say things and when they don't say things. there is as adam put it, there's

something that makes you scratch your head on this one. >> i don't know, actually, because recall that in the summer, the obama administration, in 2016 briefed the gang of eight about the russian leak and hack and the fact that they had open investigation -- an fbi investigation of donald trump. and that didn't leak either. and also recall that in that -- following up on that meeting. we went to the gang of eight and they said they wanted to make that information public. mitch mcconnell said no, he objected. so my takeaway to this piece of news as well as everything that's contained in the new york times story is that when that mueller report comes out, the republicans and congress are going to have so much to answer for. we just know little snippets, we get snapshots of everything that's going to be detailed

there, i think it's going to be damning. >> it raises a bunch of questions about devin nunes's actions. now that the gang of eight was a crowd of two dozen in the room, andy mccabe writes. i thought the chance of this not getting back to the president was zero. then devin nunes walked in, and the chance was less than zero. he was suspected of having given information during the nighttime rendezvous at the white house. look who's here i said to rod, referring to rosenstein. rosenstein understood went to talk to nunez, nunez is staying, he's not recused himself from this. he refuses to leave. if everything that's being reported is as is, that andy mccabe did brief all these folks and they knew this. how much pressure does that put on devin nunes and his actions during the summer and fall of '17? >> well, it puts some pressure,

but i'll begin by saying, i don't put a lot of stock into what andy mccabe says. this is a guy who was fired because the inspector general found he leads. so i frankly don't know if this is a factual statement from mccabe. i want to see corroborating evidence as it was said before. a transcript, to see if he clearly informed the members of the intelligence committees, and if p they truly understood what he was talking about. i mean, we just can't take andy mccabe at his word sadsly. >> frank, this is what -- this judiciary or the intel committee that would need to investigate this? >> i think either of them has standing to open the case. since we're talking the gang of eight, i think they have the -- they have the venue, the jurisdiction here, they would likely do it.

>> adam, you're watching all this from out here, you don't live it the way we all live it in some ways. even though your paper breaks bombshell after bombshell, i'm sure it's a different perspective. since you used to be a washington creature of sorts, what do you think this looks like from where you are, and do you think you'd be covering it differently if you were where we are? >> i don't think i would be covering it differently. from a lot of this stuff, it's a blur after a while. >> it's numbing people. >> i think people are losing track of it, it's more details. this whole day has been like that, a lot of people are just tuning this, or sort of critically -- it becomes their basic view of trump or the situation. this kind of stuff -- how many more things can shock people or outrage people. this is the latest one. >> jennifer palmieri, how do you

handle that politically? >> you wait until the mueller report comes out. i've lived in situations where you're waiting on action from the department of justice. you can live in suspended animation, you can convince yourself that everything is fine, and this stuff doesn't matter, and it's all a blur. i don't disagree with what adam said, but ultimately, there's going to be an earned to this process, and a report of this detail. and i think that's going to be a different day, that's when the american public will tune back in, and the republicans will have to decide which side of history they come down on. >> where is your head on all these things? you hear all this stuff. i know where you are personally on him and some of his policies. forget that, when does it become more real for you? >> i agree with what jennifer just said. the problem is, i think at the end it's not going to be republicans scratching their head, it's democrats, he may have started that investigation,

perhaps congress was wear that this investigation started. if at the end they can't find a smoking gun evidence that puts the president in a compromising position. then democrats have a problem. they keep saying that he's somehow included with the russians, if they don't find that evidence, democrats are going to -- and a lot of talking heads are going to have to do a lot of explaining to the american public. >> thank you very much. >> frank, i'm going to let you go, alfonso, jennifer and adam have to stay with me. quick programming note, former acting fbi director andrew mccabe is sitting down with lawrence o'donnell tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc. is america ready to feel the burn once again? how bernie sander's entry into the 2020 race could impact an already very crowded field. for my family. in only 8 weeks with mavyret,

i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness. with hep c behind me, i feel free... ...fearless... ...and there's no looking back, because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret. about medicare and supplemental insurance. medicare is great, but it doesn't cover everything -

only about 80% of your part b medicare costs, which means you may have to pay for the rest. that's where medicare supplement insurance comes in: to help pay for some of what medicare doesn't. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by united healthcare insurance company might be the right choice for you. a free decision guide is a great place to start. call today to request yours. so what makes an aarp medicare supplement plan unique? well, these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp and that's because they meet aarp's high standards of quality and service. you're also getting the great features that any medicare supplement plan provides. for example, with any medicare supplement plan you may choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you can even visit a specialist. with this type of plan, there are no networks

or referrals needed. also, a medicare supplement plan goes with you when you travel anywhere in the u.s. a free decision guide will provide a breakdown of aarp medicare supplement plans, and help you determine the plan that works best for your needs and budget. call today to request yours. let's recap. there are 3 key things you should keep in mind. one: if you're turning 65, you may be eligible for medicare - but it only covers about 80% of your medicare part b costs. a medicare supplement plan may help pay for some of the rest. two: this type of plan allows you to keep your doctor - as long as he or she accepts medicare patients. and three: these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. learn more about why you should choose an aarp medicare supplement plan. call today for a free guide.

welcome back tonight. mind the gap, there's a widening rift in many the democratic field about embracing socialism. right on cue, here comes bernie, the independent vermont senator has officially announced he's running again for the democratic presidential nomination, this time around, the socialist style policies that made him stand out

in the democratic party of 2016 don't quite stand out as much any more in this version of the democratic party. and he now knows it. >> you may raul that in 2016, many of the ideas that i talked about, medicare for all, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. making public colleges and universities tuition free. all of those ideas, oh, bernie they're so radical. you know what's happened in over three years, all of those ideas and many more are now part of the political mainstream. >> you're saying the party came your way? >> well, i don't want to say that, i think most people would say that. >> at the same time, you are going to have others like amy klobuchar tapping the brakes on

promising too many goodies. the president tries to tag the entire democratic party with the socialist label. bernie's back, and we'll dive into what it means right after this. right after this

senator bernie sanders made it official today, he's running many let's dive in with the pollster of the clinton campaign. alfonso, jennifer and adam are still here. let me start with you, the republican party is the party that has a history of nominating its runnerup from four years befo before, than the democrats. how unusual would it be if bernie standers is the nominee? >> i think it would be unusual. and what you have right now is a large field starting out early on. what strikes me is interesting,

senator sanders ran a strong campaign last time. he got 43% of the vote throughout the primary system. throughout the primaries, and he's polling in only one poll i think above 25%. at about 27%. he has as much name i.d. right now as everyone in that field, probably except joe byiden. but probably as much given his campaign. i don't know what's holding people back from where they were four years ago, i think democrats want to win. i'm not sure they settled yet on a candidate or who they think has the best chance to beat donald trump in 2020. >> adam why is it bernie sanders is not being treated as the front-runner in this race. on paper now, there's nobody who polls better. >> i think it's a good question, i think people -- like joel was saying, people think he's not going to go the distance. he had his moment four years ago, he didn't do it, and i think he's facing more scrutiny this time, a tougher race this

time. it's a more crowded field this time. i don't think he's necessarily as an attractive candidate as other people in the field. i think a lot of people are -- if they're not saying it, you had your chance, it's not going to go this time. >> jennifer, it feels like bernie's biggest liability is his biggest asset. he is who he is. there's no new bernny, right? >> there's no reintroducing yourself like john edwards from '04 to '08. for bernie, what you see is what you get. which is sort of what he was saying. >> it's true, and i think this is why he weathers up and down better in some campaigns. he doesn't get caught in traps the way other people do. but as adam said, he has a lot more competition this time, and people are going to have similar views. people will have more choices than they did, if you are on the

same ideological spectrum as he is. and i guess the model that he's going for is reagan, right? from '76 to '80. reagan '76 lost that primary, was a conservative candidate. very ideological. people weren't ready for it yet. i think bernie's hoping this time his party will be ready for someone like him. but they have a lot of choices. and i'm not sure that he has some of the gifts that, in terms of communicating and winning people over, that's something the other candidates will have. >> i want to keep the reagan thing going here -- the reagan sanders comparison. you know, like democrats in 1980, cheering on the nomination of ronald reagan, donald trump was cheering on bernie sanders. one of the few democrats he's had something nice to say about. what do you make of that?

>> well, i think he's cheering him on, because it helps us as republicans to highlight how the democratic party is moving to the extreme left. i mean, consider that one of the leading candidates in the democratic primary right now is a democratic socialist. and as jennifer was saying, this time around, he's not the only one. there are other candidates with similar views. medicare for all, government controlled health care, free public college. supporting green new deal that calls for a massive government involvement in the economy. i think it really helps republicans. i think -- my interest is, how does that impact the more moderate candidates like klobuchar or joe biden if he gets in? when you have all these candidates that are are moving to the extreme left, are they going to be able to remain

moderate in the primary? because if a joe biden comes out of the primary can he in a general election, if he's moved to the extreme left, say, i'm a moderate? so for us, this is actually politically good news. >> joel, answer alfonso's question there. >> well, first of all, i think that republicans like to talk about the extreme left, because they're doing so poorly with the middle. they're doing poorly with the middle because they're out of touch with a majority of where americans are. on making college more affordable, and delivering health care to more americans. you know, they promised for eight years they were going to repeal and replace obamacare, and they got whiplash because of the backlash. they are so out of touch with the middle of america right now, democrats are actually the most mainstream party, talking to people about their economic lives and economic futures in a way that benefits the middle class --

>> joel, are you worried about the s word defining the democratic party? >> not particularly, the republicans try everything they can do to paint the democratic party as the party of the left. they tried to do it in the midte midterms, they got their clocks cleaned. they got their clocks cleaned because they're not talking to the majority of the americans any more. they lost favor with women, they got clobbered in the -- they lost 12 points in the suburban vote last midterms, compared to the previous midterm. they won them by 12, democrats were even in the suburbs, the tide is changing, and they want to keep staying behind the tide and behind the curve on where america's going. >> adam, where are you on this. first of all, is bernie sanders ronald reagan or barry goldwater? >> i think he's barry goldwater. in some ways he may be out of touch with his own party.

i don't totally disagree with joel. i don't totally agree with joel here, i do think the democrats have to be wary of the socialism tag. there's a long history of republicans successfully painting democrats as being way out of touch. it's more complicated now because the party has moved so far to the right. i think a lot of what's been going on right now. is tv commercials -- i think a smart democratic candidate can win the nomination and position him or herself in such a way it will be harder for trump to do that. >> i think one thing we learned, suburban america get ready for a whiplash, series of attack ads from the left and right. joel bennett son, thank you. panel, stick around. president trump says his wall is needed because we're facing a national emergency at the border. most americans agree. a heart failure pill that helped keep people alive and out of the hospital. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby.

don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto. ♪ the beat goes on ♪ the beat goes on that was great! at to cover the essentialsyou have in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you're ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward. i but i can tell you i liberty mutual customized my car insurance so i only pay for what i need. oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

we know that when you're spending time with the grandkids every minute counts. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why we show you exactly when we'll be there. saving you time, so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ your reaction to the lawsuits yesterday filed by the states against -- >> well, i think i called it exactly, right? including the fact that there would put them into the ninth circuit, that's where they put them in. i think we'll do very well. we have absolute right to do that. >> welcome back, president trump reacting to the wall. which includes the lawsuit filed by 16 states. as a flagrant disregard of fundamental powers in the constitution.

the lawsuit even uses the president's own words against him. >> i didn't need to do this. but i'd rather do it much faster. the only reason we're up here talking about this is because of the election. >> and it's not just a legal problem for the white house. a new poll out this morning finds an overwhelming majority of americans find 61% approve of his building of the wall with the declaration unpopular, the white house staring down a losing battle. could this prove disastrous for the president? or would he rather lose and fight the loss and campaign that way? we'll discuss it after the break. break. but you're not, because you have e*trade, which isn't complicated. their tools make trading quicker and simpler so you can take on the markets with confidence. don't get mad. get e*trade. when cravings hit, hit back. choose glucerna, with slow release carbs

to help manage blood sugar, and start making everyday progress. glucerna. even if you're doing everything right, inside, something can be wrong. preventive screenings can help. but if you're not showing any symptoms... insurance usually won't cover them. what then? call life line screening. we make checking for things like stroke and heart disease so quick, easy and affordable, there's no reason you can't take control of your own health. if you're over 40, call to schedule an appointment for five painless screenings that go beyond regular checkups. after all, 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom is a stroke. and 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease are preventable. that's why life line screening uses ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries for dangerous plaque that builds up as you age. it's what's inside that counts. so learn what your body's not telling you and call today. you'll get five screenings for only $149- saving over 50%.

life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more. (clapping) every day, visionaries are creating the future. ( ♪ ) so, every day, we put our latest technology and vast expertise to work. ( ♪ ) the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, affordably and on-time. (ringing) ( ♪ ) the future only happens with people who really know how to deliver it. our panel is back. i want to put up the party splits on that poll, because i want to bring it up, because it's sort of shows you our politics in a nutshell. among democrats, 94% disapprove

of the national emergency. among republicans, 85% approve of the president's majority of independents, 63% that disapprove of this. considering the lack of partisan backlash for the president here, politically does he have that much to lose here if he ends up losing in court? >> in some ways he might be better off losing in court because of his base, an important caveat, because of the various fighting. he doesn't want to be the dog that catches the car, have to implement this. and the independent numbers remind me of this, it is a base strategy. once again he is going after his base. taking what happened in 2016, you can't win an election unless there's a fluke with 38, 40% of the vote. if i was working for trump and saw the independent numbers, my heart would go through the seat,

i would be alarmed by that. >> alfonso, independent numbers never seem to panic the white house, no matter what the numbers are with the middle there, self described independents. >> absolutely. and this specific move is as adam was saying directed towards his base. but let me be clear about this, i don't support the president declaring a national emergency about this, it is a bad precedent. i'm concerned a democratic president could exploit this in the future. in terms of legal authority, i think he does have it, because of the national emergency act of '76. this broad delegation of power to the president. i think he will be validated, but i think the conservatives and liberals are being consistent on this and it shows how polarized the immigration issue is. conservatives have always

criticized obama for his imperial presidency, governing through executive action. now you have so many conservatives supporting a declaration of national emergency. on the other hand, liberals supported barack obama going around congress, creating the daca without constitutional authority, now criticizing trump saying this violates the constitutional separation of powers. >> jennifer, i mean, he's got a point there. it seems as if it is the party that commits the violation we get more outrage. >> the courts upheld daca. it was challenged in court and upheld. >> not daca, the epa, not the daca one. >> yeah, i said daca. but it is challenged in court and the court's ruled. the wall has been a game to

trump, it is not a real issue, tas game he uses to entice his base. no matter what happens in court, whether he wins or loses, head, he wins, tails we lose, doesn't matter. he will find a way to make that issue work for him and his base and they will buy into whatever answer, whatever response he has because that's the kind of control he has over the people that support him and the value they get from him being president. >> what would you advise a presidential candidate on the democratic side of the aisle to handle immigration, don't bother talking to him and his base, talk to independents that clearly want something in between what the two parties are offering? >> i actually don't. i actually would argue that they have to make the argument on immigration to everybody, whether these people vote for them or not. i think targeting certain voters who you think are open to you is part of the reason we got into the mess where we had donald trump as president.

i think you should try to convince them as well as independent supporters as well as democrats, make the argument heard, and hope that it has some impact. but i do know that he will figure out a way to find, to keep his most hardcore supporters with him no matter what the outcome for the course is. >> adam, being here in california, i know california republicans are absolutely apoplectic how the president talks about immigration and about hispanics and latinos, it is a frustration that the party feels as if they're not even being given a chance. does this only make it harder? >> yeah, the california republican party has been in trouble a long time, in large part because of the way it sort of was identified with policies that were considered anti-immigration and anti-hispanic. what's going on now has been a nightmare. people like schwarzenegger, small group, trying to move the party to the center to make it

competitive which it is not in the state. this kind of rhetoric out of washington, not talking the merits, is the worst thing for the republican party trying to be competitive in an increasingly blue state. >> we had a panel cross-country from coast to coast. thank you for that. up ahead, forget the coasts, space force. are you ready for lift off? ace . are you ready for lift off woman 1: this... woman 2: ...this... man 1: ...this is my body of proof. man 2: proof of less joint pain... woman 3: ...and clearer skin. man 3: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis...

woman 4: ...with humira. woman 5: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. (avo): humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. woman 6: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 7: go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action.

wbut prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. because they let me to customize my insurance, and as a fitness junkie, i customize everything. like my bike and my calves. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

in case you missed it, space force is back. not the old show we told you about last year, no, no, no. not the soon to be steve carell show on netflix, although that's about the real space force. we mean the real, real space force. president trump signed a directive establishing space force at least for now. not its own branch any more, it will be part of the air force. good for the air force, how would they have lost there. some can do we need a space force and what is the cost? we'll let the president speak for himself on that. >> space is a new fighting domain, with the space force leading the way, we have some very bad players out there and we're a good player. >> okay. come on. that wasn't nearly space forcy enough. control room, let's activate the space force filter.

>> space is a new war fighting domain. with the space force leading the way. we have some very bad players out there, and we're a good player. >> little cgi helps him there. there you go. what happens next? where do we go from here? watch this space force. that's all we have for tonight. the puns are gone too. we're back tomorrow. "the beat" with ari melber sfar starts now. a big show tonight. the top story, two pieces of breaking news in the mueller probe. a federal judge is considering jailing roger stone before trial based on provocative messages he sent which could violate the new gag order he got in the case. remember the chaotic scenes of him coming