my thank to nicole for allowing me to fill in. thank you all very much. i appreciate it. that's going to do it for this hour. mtp daily starts now. that hey, chuck. >> if it's friday, how is your march going? >> good evening. i'm chuck todd in washington. welcome to "meet the press" daily. the president used his veto power for the first time. his emergency declaration at the border which of course is about getting money for his wall, which keeps hitting a wall.

the president ran through what you might call his greatest hits on immigration, the border, and the wall. and he addressed the 12 senate republicans who indeed did rebuke him yesterday. >> they were doing what they have to do. and, look, i did -- i put no pressure on anybody. i actually said i could have gotten some of them to come along. i said vote your heart. do what you want to do. i'm not putting any pressure. i'll let them know when there's pressure. and i told them that. when i need your vote, i'll let you know. i didn't need the vote. we all knew it would be a veto and they're not going to be able to override. no mention of the word constitution. we'll get to that later. the reporting from inside the white house suggests otherwise. we're going to get to that in a moment as well. moments after the president's veto, speaker pelosi announced they will try it march 26th. it is expected fail. especially at this moment.

when everyone is on pins and needles about what's in the mueller report and as the 2020 race really starts to kick into higher gears. what does today say about the president's power or lack thereof. he was hoping to avoid today's veto. he still lost a dozen of them. and the only reason he didn't lose more is because the president has the power to strike fear into the hearts of republicans running for re-election in 2020. you even had one of them write an op-ed how he was going to vote against the president only to turn tail at the last moment. peter baker is chief white house correspondent and political analyst. he join tonight's panel of ruth marcus, washington post columnist. alexei mccann non, political reporter with axios. and maresh, a bloomberg columnist. peter baker, i want to start with you. i thought it was interesting is

that the president didn't attack those who voted against him. but he also didn't acknowledge the constitutional debate at all on this. in fact, trodding out the attorney general to back him up, which i thought was a pretty interesting moment for the attorney general is really sort of first moment playing pure politics on behalf of his new boss. >> that's exactly right. vetoes of course happen in every presidency. they are usually about a policy fight, spending fight or something. they're often a negotiating tact tactic. this goes to the heart of our government. this goes to the heart of who has who kind of power, right? the congress is saying the power to spend is our power. and the 12 republicans are saying even though i might agree with the president on the policy point, that is if we need a wall, we don't agree you get to aggregate that to yourself. that's why this fight, this veto is more significant than most we have seen in recent times.

you're right. to have bill barr validate the president speaks to his philosophy of power which goes back to his first service under the first president bush >> no doubt there has been a debate about is this 12 republicans, is this a sign, oh, my god, the party is going to break? or is it more shocking that it got to 12 without people like ben sasse. the ben sasse decision is one i just can't figure out. let us go back into the way back machine. we don't have to go that far back. this is november of 2015. first year senator ben sasse. take a listen to him on the senate floor. >> everything cannot be simply republican versus democrat. we need democrats who will stand up to a democratic president who exceeds his or her power. and i promise you that i plan to speak up the next time a president of missed party seeks to exceed his or her legitimate constitutional powers.

>> well, ramesh, here's his explanation. i think the national emergency law is overly broad and i want to fix it but at present nancy pelosi doesn't so i am therefore voting against her politically motivated resolution. i have a copy of the constitution in here. i've been looking all day for the pelosi amendment. there is no pelosi amount. >> it is a pelosi clause. >> is there a clause? >> you didn't carefully enough to 2015. he promised to speak up. and he did speak up. >> do we have to parse words like that? >> no. >> he's up in 2020 by the way. >> there aren't many splints you could use to predict which senator came out where among the republicans. people on the right of the caucus, left on the caucus, people who have been more vocal in their criticism, people less critical like blunt and wicker.

>> those were surprises to me. blunt in particular. >> one thing that was striking is how have people up in 2020 voted against trump. >> susan collins. and she gave it the office. >> and you're -- there isn't a serious -- paula page isn't primarying here. >> mcsally in arizona. cory gardner in colorado. tom tillis in north carolina. they all voted with the president in states where it is not a general election safe to do. >> you know what i look at. i look at the georgia governor as my example during 2018. the decision -- versus dean heller in nevada, right? you worry about equivocating, the swing vote or i'm going all in with the president and hope the base carries me over the finish line. i think tom tillis is saying i have to go with the guy because i can't afford to lose him. >> i'm glad we're talking about re-election. that really say big part of

this. we don't have to think too far back to remember the 2018 midterms and the president's success and how far they got. and the folks he didn't endorse he specifically came out against. and how they lost their hopes of seeking higher office re-election were severely damaged because the president did not support them. you can have a general election strategy i suppose as a republican senator with the way you're voting with or against the president. but you cannot win a general election as a republican right now under president trump without winning the republican primary. he is the king maker as we saw just last year. >> this is simultaneously a rebuke of the republican president. and a demonstration of his power. >> absolutely. well done. >> for the reasons that alexei said. the 1 of 22. when you are a president that has 90% approval rate in your party, which is record-high for a republican president, for pretty much any incumbent

president at this point in his term, you wield a lot of power, and we saw that yesterday. >> even on something like border security, which we all know the president loves to sensationalize, that it is a national emergency. i was in wisconsin talking to obama/trump voters. they matter a lot in midterm elections. and this refrain that kept coming up is like, well, i don't really care about a border wall but the president does and i respect the president so therefore i care about border security. that's the way they are thinking through something like this even in the midwest. >> peter baker, there is another aspect that people forget, okay, the congress isn't going to be able to overright thde this vet. there will be a supreme court case on this. the president is doing something with the national emergency act that no president had ever done before which is actually trying to move money to a project that congress specifically said no to. >> right. right.

and exactly right. and they will use this vote in the congress to disallow, to overturn his national emergency declaration as example in court to say, see, he does not have the win of the congress here. and that was tnot the intent of the law. some lawyers will tell you it may not necessarily matter. it was the intent of the law when it was passed as opposed to the current congress feels about it. they should vote to get rid of the law. the president can sign or veto it. as matter of argument anyway, it does reinforce the idea that he is doing something that congress doesn't intend him to do. he is moving money that congress explicitly twice in effect has told him you don't have the power to do. >> it's interesting, ruth, the supreme court, could they actually take a pass on this in order to avoid deciding the constitution ality, that is basically saying this is between you two, or do they take the case and then either affirm or not affirm. but if they affirm the

president's power, there is an executive -- strong executive majority on this, pro executive branch on this court. i think they would uphold the president. >> there are going to be so many ways. first of all, it's going to take a while for this to become a case who has standing to bring. first of all, he's going to have to -- >> congress will. >> use the emergency powers. >> any member of congress. >> well, congressional standing is a little bit complicated. that's a kind of ways down the road. it's going to take some time. we could have different people on the court by the time that comes. but there are a lot of ways, including the fundamental doctrine of political question that the courts can -- the court, if i want wants, and it may have a lot of interest in doing so, can avoid getting involved in this food fight between two other branches. >> we will be in our fourth year of the trump presidency and we're still trying to deal with the signature issue of his campaign, the wall.

>> i think that is -- that tells you quite a bit, actually, about how he's led the executive branch and how he's led his party. that he didn't make it a priority in a serious way when he had a republican congress. he turned down a deal in 2018. >> dude, this is on you, man. you are the one that put the wrong appropriation number into the budget. you were the one that never asked for anything. you were the one that -- i'm sorry. this is on him and him alone. >> the president and some of his supporters will blame paul ryan. basic live what they are saying is paul ryan should have made trump's issue more of a priority than trump himself did. >> i know. >> and it just doesn't work that way. >> and the other thing too, and i wish i had poll numbers. the idea, especially outside of washington, that washington is so corrupt. that is something that president trump ran on, draining the swamp. however successful or not he's been on that, people blame washington as an institution and how corrupt it can be and how

slow moving things can pass through congress or not. i heard last year during the midterms, rather than blaming trump, which is giving him a pass. and that reflects that 38% to 42% approval rating. no matter what he does. 90% among republicans. i don't know if they're ever going to blame him for anything. >> peter baker, his only agenda item for the year apparently is figuring out how to do the wall. they don't even have a good plan in place how to get nafta 2.0 passed. >> we are almost three months into this year. his third year in the presidency. he obviously went overseas for the failed summit with kim jong-un. this is the one signature thing he's banked his whole year on. and so far it hasn't exactly worked out quite the way he wanted. he's got more money in his next budget. he is planning to reup the fight and trying to pressure strong arm congress into giving him

more money. you're exactly right. it's the idea that he is fighting for it. whether he gets it or not that really matters to his supporters. the specific numbers on this or that. this many billions. that many miles of wall. what matters to a lot of people that support him is he is fighting the system. the system is resisting but he's the only one with our interest at heart. >> is there a point where it looks like, oh, my god, have you gotten anything else done? is there a breaking point. >> not for his supporters maybe. but if you had been able to have a secret ballot in the senate yesterday. >> it goes to 40, doesn't it? easily. among republicans, excuse me. >> that's why -- that's why the president's ability is critical to the president's ability to retain the loyalty of republican members of congress. because they have no lost lost for him. his righter of the wall is not their priority. his political future is not

their huge concern. their political future is their huge concern. it is both strong and the sense of the 90% and tenuous in the sense that if that 90% starts to crumble for some external reason. >> yeah. >> mueller, something. i know you're shaking your head. it's unlikely we haven't seen it. but it could be south in a nanosecond. he may be feared but he is not loved. mack srely told us the answer to that. >> i will say this ramesh, get to go 20 now doesn't seem too hard when you see the 12 on the record. we know of three or four that almost went there. >> i would say, though, let's be realistic. the 12 republicans who voted against trump, yes on the disapproval resolution, they are going to want to patch things up with the white house and trump supporters. they are more eager to do that than trump. partly because there's he wants

from the senate. >> that's a fair point. peter baker, thank you, sir. happy friday to you. you guys stick around. >> beto's big money made him a big star in 2018. we'll tell you the surprising thing he just said about his fund list raising numbers about a presidential candidate. mbers a presidential candidate i did a lot of research into dna tests.

most can tell the continent or country that your ancestors are from, but ancestrydna showed me the specific places they called home. 20 million members have connected to a deeper family story. order your kit at ancestry.com.

i found a companyeans to who believes in me.rt. they look out for me. and they help me grow my career. at comcast it's my job to constantly monitor our network,

prevent problems, and to help provide the most reliable service possible. my name is tanya, i work at the network operations center for comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. in the aftermath of a presidential announcement. kamala harris's campaign says they raised $1.5 million. bernie sanders said he raised nearly $6 million in his first 24 hours. and beto o'rourke, what is his haul? 38 million in a month as a texas

senate candidate. here's what he had to say a little over an hour ago. >> you alluded to the financial hurdles. can you release any fund-raising figures? >> i can't right now. i could. let me answer the question even better. i choose not to. >> joining me now to look at where the field stands is marcos, a founder of daily coast and someone that always is keeping a close eye on the 2020 democratic field and has his finger on the pulse of the democratic party's goal. let me start with this. beto o'rourke, is he, in your mind, a progressive? >> that is so vague. he definitely could wear the label. and i think we get too hung up on that label sometimes. who is progressive, who is more progressive. they all have issues that they're good and not so good on.

beto was talking about the supreme court in a way that is appealing to progress if's. progressives. maybe expanding justices. so that's very progressive. so, sure, let's call them progressive. >> let me play for you his interview with gayle king about universal health care. i want you to take a listen. >> the goal should be universal guaranteed high quality health care. i think we complement, supplement those who have private employer insurance with the ability to be covered under medicare. that allows us sooner than almost any other plan to insure every other american, see a doctor, afford their prescriptions or take their child to a therapist. >> are you medicare for all. >> i think medicare for all is one of the possible paths. >> let me ask you this. is there -- are there litmus tests that are that specific

when it comes to medicare for all universal health care? he is in the camp closer to klobuchar. we have the system that we've got. let's build upon it. >> right. he is trying to thread the needle between, yes, medicare for all and oh, no, they might be losing their private employer-provided health insurance. either answer is going to win every single time. yeah, everybody should have health care, period. how do we get there? medicare for all is definitely one of those ways. he is trying to thread the needle. it is far more complicated than it needs to be. he hasn't been able to hone in some of these easy questions into a more digestible answer. and that speaks to the fact that running for president is a lot different than running for senate. running for senate 100% of democrats loved him. he was a national hero. some of you run for president. 80% are gutting for you trying

to nitpick everything you say. it is a different environment. i'm surprised he wasn't prepared for that. >> "the wall street journal" had a great line on him. i'm curious if you think this is an asset or liability these days. they wrote mr. o'rourke's campaign history showed his ability to adapt and develop a campaign message to fit the times and his audience. now, the same thing could have been said about a young candidate in 2007 named barack obama. is that something in today's democratic primary, the primary -- you think your primary voter, the people you spend a lot of time with, are they going to accept that kind of, well, you know, pragmatism, i guess, if you will. >> pragmatism is absolutely essential. but the reality is that things like medicare for all are popular. things like the green deal for all are popular. these are not electoral deal breakers. so you can be fully progressive knowing that there is really not going to be a lot of bleed

within the party basis. trump has 90% of republicans. the democratic nominee will have 90% of democrats. there's not going to be a lot of real voters that are really up for grabs. the question is who gets their voters to the polls? and democrats historically have had a harder time doing that. if they can motivate young voters is and people of color and single women to vote, that dramatically changes the equation. so i think there isati a hungerr unambiguous, progressive message. anybody that tries to mealy mouth that will have trouble. >> you are a fan of elizabeth warren and kamala harris. yes. >> i'm curious what you make from political about a little bit of backlash against the attention that beto has gotten. here's politico today. the breathless sweeps like cable television coverage that greeted the first campaign events stunned and particularly women.

viewed it as an example of the double standard at work in the historically diverse presidential field. he had already been ordained the next sensation. let me ask you this, though. is this beto o'rourke's fault? and what is he supposed to do about this supposed backlash. you know, you have heard people not liking the fact that he did the campaign video with his wife and she didn't say anything. things like that. is this stuff that will matter to voters? >> i think long term -- the short-term rollout doesn't matter. the longer term themes do matter. this is a democratic party that is interested -- it's dominated by women, people of color and really asserting themselves in interests in having a nominee that reflects that party base. and so beto himself admitted he was at a disadvantage being a white male. joe biden.

is there a double standard? of course there's a double standard. i don't think the media has the power it used to do. of ability of harris and warren to speak directly to their supporters without the media focus will completely change the game. long term, i think it's going to -- the nominee is going to be a woman. and that's the lid i'm going to sit on. >> i'm going to make you -- this is the last one. you brought up joe biden. i know you believe that pwaoebi and bernie, that is going to be a challenge for them. but if he calls you up tonight and says, marcos, i know you think rhyme not the best candidate in this field, give some advice on how to prove you wrong? >> i don't think there's advice. i'm forward looking. that doesn't mean i would say don't run. i remember laughing at the 17 republicans running for president thinking they were going to tear each other up,

allowing the democrat to waltz into the white house. they were speaking to different parties of the party base. if 15 democrats want to run, talking about democratic issues, one-upping each other on democratic policy, that is good in the end. does that mean i think he has a chance of win something no. i don't think he has a chance of winning. but i don't think it's a bad thing that he runs. >> and you would still support him if he's the nominee? >> absolutely. i support every single one of them. if you ask every democrat, you will get the same answer. >> we noticed the straw poll, daily coast straw poll. has it been sabotaged by the bernies. >> they are very, very organized. no. we made a mistake where they're allowed to cheat a little bit, which was not exactly cool. but there's nothing wrong with being organized online. i want to see all the candidates learn how to organize their supporters online. because i think that will be very, very helpful moving into

2020 when we have a nominee. so they should all be doing their best. >> you say, all right, if he's figured out how to get around some of these things, then the others should too? that's your lesson? >> yeah. the lesson is that i need to do my part to make the straw poll hard tore gain. but the fact is we're okay with people being motivated and driving their supporters to the polls. and i don't think there's any doubt that in the online world bernie sanders has the most engaged, most motivated supporters. and the other campaigns need to catch up. i don't think it's determine active. i don't think it's going to make a decision one way or the other. but it is very, very helpful. >> just don't end up calling michael cohen's friends to help online. marcos, thanks for coming on. always good to hear your views on this race. >> it's a pleasure. a quick 2020 programming note. don't miss msnbc headliners special look at beto o'rourke.

that's this sunday 9:00 p.m. eastern a new development today in the mueller investigation. special counsel has a witness who is still talking. we're never getting this report, everybody. we'll be right back. ybody. we'lbel right back. i don't know what's going on. i've done all sorts of research, read earnings reports, looked at chart patterns. i've even built my own historic trading model. and you're still not sure if you want to make the trade? exactly. sounds like a case of analysis paralysis. is there a cure? td ameritrade's trade desk. they can help gut check your strategies and answer all your toughest questions. sounds perfect. see, your stress level was here and i got you down to here, i've done my job. call for a strategy gut check with td ameritrade. ♪ little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats 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. ready to treat differently with a pill? otezla. show more of you. ready to treat differently with a pill? i'with uncontrollederson who moderate-to-severe eczema, . or atopic dermatitis... ...you feel like you're itching all the time. and you never know how your skin will look. because deep within your skin... ...an overly sensitive immune system... ...could be the cause. so help heal your skin from within. with dupixent. dupixent is not a steroid,... ...and it continuously treats your eczema... ...even when you can't see it. at 16 weeks, nearly four times more patients taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin compared to those not taking it.

...and patients saw a significant reduction in itch. do not use if you are allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, a severe reaction. tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems, including eye pain or changes in vision. if you are taking asthma medicines, do not change or stop your asthma medicine without talking to your doctor. help heal your skin from within. ask your eczema specialist about dupixent. ♪ ♪ this simple banana peel represents a bold idea: a way to create energy from household trash. it not only saves about 80% in carbon emissions... it helps reduce landfill waste. that's why bp is partnering with a california company: fulcrum bioenergy. to turn garbage into jet fuel.

because we can't let any good ideas go to waste. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing. welcome back to 2020 vision. you might say presidential hopefuls are courting the vote as marcos just previewed.

>> inspect of those who chose the first ten. >> on his first day as a presidential candidate, beto o'rourke floated a total revamp with 15 justices. and he's not the only one pondering changes to the high court. pete buttigieg has other plans. >> people from the appellate bench. we need to begin to debate what it will take to make sure it is less political. stphr while buttigieg and o'rourke are suggesting adding justices to he chief a bipartisan balance, he wants to force bipartisan consensus for supreme court nominees. >> i would not nominate a supreme court justice unless he or she could be confirmed by two-thirds, two-thirds of the united states senate. >> you can expect the other

candidates will be questioned about possible changes in the supreme court in the coming days. by the way, it's basically this year's gerrymandering conversation if you will. that used to be the number one talking point. now it's the court. monday, 7:00 p.m., chris matthews joined by cory booker on the road. right after that, chris hayes has a townhall with senator kirsten jill grand. n jill grand and struggle. we actually... seek it out. other species do difficult things because they have to. we do difficult things. because we like to. we think it's... fun. introducing the all-new 2019 ford ranger built for the strangest of all creatures. but 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. it's nice. ♪ you got this! ♪ woo! ♪

♪ ♪

welcome back. we learned today that the star witness in one of manafort's trials is still cooperating with the special counsel's investigation. former campaign >> adrian: rick gates has been working with the mueller team more than a year. he is not ready to be sentenced because he is still cooperating with several ongoing investigations, plural. while mueller was able to flip gates, he never managed to fully flip his former boss, paul

manafort. so is mueller about to be done with his investigation without fully flipping manafort. oh, by the way, without ever getting a presidential interview in front of the grand jury. former u.s. assistant district attorney and msnbc legal analyst. mimi, let me start with you. the significance of the gates delay and sentencing again we're sitting here on one hand today. the mueller report would have extra symbolic meaning to some writers. but here we were anticipating potentially a mueller report filing. are we overanticipating the mueller report find something could we be weeks away? >> we could, chuck. i certainly don't claim to know the answer. i don't think these things are necessarily inconsistent. in other words, i'm increasingly thinking that mueller's special

counsel office is not going to exist in, you know, the near future. i'm not going to put a time on it. but that office, we have seen andrew weissman is leaving. one of the central fbi agents is leaving. i think we're going to hear about other prosecutors leaving. i don't think mueller and his team frankly want to or can sustain what they have been doing. people left their family for two years. they're working 80 to 100-hour weeks around the clock. and i think bob mueller is a creature of the department of justice and wants to hand as much of this off to the department of justice, which is not a bad thing. you know, the department of justice offices all around the country and the main justice itself is more than capable of handling much of this whatever this is exactly. and so i think that we may see a report from bob mueller, but

that doesn't mean that the investigations and certainly not the prosecutions are over. we know roger stone is going to trial in november. >> right. >> you know, there are going to be other prosecutors. and that's just one example. >> we have four open cases right now. roger stone, we have a trial. michael flynn is ready for sentencing. gates still cooperating. michael cohen reporting to prison. glen, one of the ways i was looking at the manafort sentencing this week is that it was -- mueller really never got him to flip. we can debate. he didn't really cooperate. is this a failure for mueller? does this mean it's an incomplete report? >> you know, i think it's a mixed bag. i agree with you he didn't get him to fully flip because we heard judge jackson say manafort continued to lie. he lied to investigators and the grand jury. my suspicion is manafort told

mueller as much as manafort was willing to tell mueller while still being concerned about perhaps threats from the russians if he told mueller everything. we have seen what the russians have done to people who cross them in london and elsewhere. >> right. >> so that doesn't surprise me. i do think that the gates information about how gates continues to assist in multiple investigations is realty important. because, listen, gates and manafort were co-conspirators together, no doubt about it. what we will find, and i'm sure mimi will tell you the same thing, when we investigate conspiracies and get a cooperator from the inside, it's remarkable how one co-op rarity knows everything that -- >> he has everything he needs from gates? >> i think so. even if he didn't commit every crime with manafort, man north would have told him so gates can be who is the alibi, who is the

enemy, who owes us money. >> the president tweeted there should not be a mueller report. he is creating this mythology that special counsel happened because of the steel dossier, which i think is a new one in the different ways he has concocted this. i go back and forth. here on one hand, i feel like the president wants to say he's vindicated. on the other hand, he still seems to fear this mueller report. >> right. exactly. the fact that the house yesterday voted to essentially say let's see the mueller report, and the president is still saying no, there shouldn't even have been one on the first place means he has something to fear. this goes back to this very basic concept that almost has gotten lost because there's been so much noise since the beginning of this. but since day one, trump has opposed this investigation and tried to smear it and obstruct it. and if you're innocent, if you have nothing to hide, you want

the facts to come out. the facts are your friend. and that is clearly not the way trump views this. and so, again, it seems to be because a rational person would conclude that that's because the facts are bad for him. and i think that's increasingly been true. whenever facts do come out. >> i was asking a senator the other day, do you plan to subpoena manafort. do you plan to bring him before congress? a lawyer reminded me, you know, he has this open case in manhattan, the manhattan d.a. and he would need to be immunized if, you know -- his lawyer would probably asked to be immunized. but there may be a double jeopardy question here. lawyers have said he may have a legitimate double jeopardy case against the manhattan d.a. because he is being sentenced for tax fraud. they are hitting him with

mortgage fraud. strong case for manafort? >> i have heard the opinions about the double jeopardy issue that might present itself as a result of the new york charges. >> yeah. >> i would hope as a former career prosecutor that cyrus vance has really done his homework and decide to bring only those charges that won't be defeated by the new york double jeopardy law. >> which is pretty tough. it is tougher than the federal law. >> it is defendant friendly. >> very defendant friendly. >> it looks like some of the charges brought by the new york authorities may have a real uphill battle on the double jeopardy challenge but others may not. listen, they can always dismiss some of the charges which doesn't make them look good but they can move forward on others. >> you're familiar with the double -- the double jeopardy law in new york state. what's your take on that? >> right. it's much more restrictive than what the constitution requires. so i think a lot of people assume, well, as long as there

are different charges, different elements to be proven in each charge, that's okay. that's really basically what the constitution requires. but in new york, there's overlap in the facts then you have a problem. i think two things. one, cy vance must have thought this through. he is being aggressive in the charges. some are safe because he probably figures i lose some counts. >> but hang on. he ended up pleading guilty to the hung counts, manafort. >> well, yes, that would be a problem. that's true. i forget about that. but he's taking -- he's doing this as an insurance policy. >> right. >> if trump comes in and pardons manafort, there is an indictment there that then you at least have a legal battle over it. first of all, weather to be charged and whether a pardon does away with the double jeopardy issue. if it does because of the

pardon, that's a legal question too that's very open. so i think he's being aggressive here. this is a case where you want a prosecutor to be aggressive if what you're guarding against is possibly the corrupt use of the pardon power. >> i imagine the new york supreme court is going to end up getting involved in this real quick. always good to have you guys on and sharing your knowledge with our audience. thank you. up ahead, why i'm obsessed with the best words that we don't get to use nearly enough. the way they subscribe to movies. we don't follow the naysayers. ♪ ♪ you should be mad at airports. excuse me, where is gate 87? you should be mad at non-seasoned travelers. and they took my toothpaste away. and you should be mad at people who take unnecessary risks. how dare you, he's my emotional support snake. but you're not mad, because you have e*trade, whose tech helps you understand

the risk and reward potential on an options trade it's a paste. it's not liquid or a gel. and even explore what-if scenarios. where's gate 87? don't get mad. get e*trade and start trading today. conventional wisdom says you can't make a 400 horsepower sedan, that's also environmentally conscious. we don't follow conventional wisdom. ♪ ♪

welcome back. tonight i'm obsessed with what happens here at msnbc every four years. no, no, not that. but i love that election music, trust me. no i'm talking about our quad republicanal journey deep in the boughs of "30 rock" where we find the phup ets. when we pull out the old campaign lexicon. an expansive collection of words and phrases we only get to use during election years. >> he's a good bellwether. >> he will be the bellwether. >> bellwether. >> battle ground. >> cash on hand is what matters. >> cash on hand. >> seriously testing the waters. >> testing the water, if you will. >> testing the waters. >> testing the waters.

>> bellwether, testing the waters, war chest. it's all the best words, we only use the best words here. every four years, the only time we use those words, we ask the same question. how come we don't use these words all the time? why shouldn't we fertilize our grassroots? why shouldn't we try to use a few pounds inside the beltway. put our campaign vocabulary back to america, america. i know your held. what words should we use all year-round? connect with us on our social media accounts using ""votecabulary. stand by for a political story near you. senator smith threw her hat in the ring by a bastien of employers taking to the husting in a battle ground state,

testing the waters in this bellwether community. ters in ths bellwether community humira patients, you inspire us. the way you triumph over adversity. and live your lives. that's why we redesigned humira. we wanted to make the experience better for you. now there's less pain immediately following injection. we've reduced the size of the needle and removed the citrate buffers. and it has the same effectiveness you know and trust. humira citrate-free is here.

a little change can make a big difference. 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. ask your doctor about humira citrate-free. here's to you.

do you see today white nationalism as a rising threat around the world? >> i don't really. i think it's a small group of people that have very, very serious problems. i guess if you look at what happened in knew sonew zealandps that's the case. it's a terrible thing. >> that was president trump speaking after a namassacre as o mosques. he's described as a white ring -- wing extremists. he references president trump.

there's eight chan. it's one of the many social media cites this person frequented. despite his posts, he was never on a security watch list. the pipe bomber, the synagogue shooter, this guy in new zealand. the fbi spends a lot of time worrying about muslim who is could be radicalized online looking for extremist jihad all around the world. is it time to think about worrying about the radicalization of these white nationalists and focusing on it the way the fbi focuses on islamic terrorists? >> what struck me as as president trump was saying it's a small group of people with serious problems. it's possible for a small group of people for serious problems to do an awful lot of damage. that was sort of glossed over there. i think we have seen a pattern now where there's an awful lot of terrorists violence that's

being caused by people who are, share certain ideas, overlapping online networks and that needs to be taken seriously. >> i have to jump in because i want to say it's not time to start taking this seriously, it's past time to start taking this seriously. you listed the events and others in europe. >> this is just in the last two years. >> it's really distressing that good for the president he said it was a terrible event. everybody would agree to that. he has been unable or unwilling from the start of his presidency or before to condemn white nationalism in any form. we just seen manifestation after manifestation of how that ideology and rhetoric results in a few actions from a few people. >> obviously the president standing on this is very weak.

look what he did after the san bernadino that involved muslim extremist, small group of people. don't pay attention to this. he created a travel ban after san bernardino. >> responses like that especially from the president are exhausting. they are not surprising though. he's not paying attention. it seems you brought up the fbi earlier. the fbi report that came out in 2018 that showed for the third consecutive year hate crime had been on the rise. they rose for increase. 60% of the hate crimes in 2017 were motivated by race and et n -- ethnicity. if they are motivated by race and ethnicity who are are the people committing those. >> janet napolitano had the report about the rise of white nationalism that there was

concern that was coming. there was a lot of push back from republicans that felt it was creeping into speech. creeping into politicalization. that's not a good place to be but it seems like the republican party are uncomfortable getting into this white nationalism issue. >> that 2009 report could not have been couched in terms that would been more likely to rile up republicans complaining about the possibility that veterans returning from overseas were a threat. >> except what happened with the pittsburgh synagogue shooter. that paper predicted the synagogue shooter. we now had enough experience. we have seen some more of these instances. the last few years. it's 15 years. that the situation has changed. >> all right. it was a pretty horrendous way to wake up this morning. just talk about a gut punch for the globe.

thank you very much. we'll be right back. obe. thank you very much. we'll be right back. -guys, i want you to meet someone. this is jamie. you're going to be seeing a lot more of him now. -i'm not calling him "dad." -oh, n-no. -look, [sighs] i get it. some new guy comes in helping your mom bundle and save with progressive, but hey, we're all in this together. right, champ? -i'm getting more nuggets. -how about some carrots? you don't want to ruin your dinner. -you're not my dad! -that's fair. overstepped.

[indistinct conversation] [friend] i've never seen that before. ♪ ♪ i have... ♪

i found a companyeans to who believes in me.rt. they look out for me. and they help me grow my career. at comcast it's my job to constantly monitor our network, prevent problems, and to help. that's all for tonight. we'll be back monday with more mtp daily. i'm headed to iowa. i'll speak with senator amy klobuchar. there's cory booker, beto o' rourke. the beat with ari melber starts now. good luck out there. we're covering many different stories. the white house responding to a bipartisan rebuke on terrorism.

later we have this beat exclusi exclusive. a former fox news reporter talking to congress despite her nda with fox news. we'll get into that and how that led to michael cohen's crime during the 2016 election. we begin with firm detailed actual news about the mueller probe on a friday night. the probe is not over despite many rumors it ouwould have bee over weeks ago. there's two federal prosecutors in two different cases stating under oath there are at least two, maybe more active quote, ongoing investigations that relate to or grow out of this mueller probe. first there's the trump aide turned convict turned star witness against president trump rick gates. he's