>> you read it. what are you doing? >> what -- i'm looking up to joyce vance. just want to -- always wanted to do it. >> we all look up to joyce. >> did something happen? >> the incredibleshrinking -- >> it's really weird being down here. >> see, welcome to life as a short person. my thanks to john, joyce, david, matt, and everyone else that joined us. thank you for watching. i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now. >> listen, you guys just can't come on air latching when clearly he told some great joke that none of us are in on. >> wait, show chuck todd where he's sitting. look! >> come on, look. >> we can't show you. he's like a head shorter than joyce vance, who is about my

height. >> gotcha. i'll let it go. i know there's something funnier there, but i better let it go. thank you, nicolle. if it's thursday -- plugging wikileaks. good evening, i'm chuck todd here in washington. julian assange has been at the center of some of the largest intelligence breaches in american history. he was a central player in the russian conspiracy to hack the 2016 election and now he's in custody. assange was arrested in london today on behalf of u.s. authorities. he was literally dragged out of the ecuadorian 'embassy, where he's been living since 2012. the justice department today unsealed an indictment charging assange with a conspiracy to hack classified information tied to that massive leak, the first one, that made wikileaks famous in 2010 by chelsea manning.

assange and his lawyers say the u.s. is trying to infringe on his journalistic freedoms, though the indictment accuses him of helping manning hack into government systems, which isn't journalism. the hacking is what they say is the crime, not the publication. folks, this is obviously a huge story, not just because of what assange has done with wikileaks and who he has perhaps done it for, but also because of what he knows. in addition to his role in the chelsea manning leaks and the edward snowden case, assange is at the nexus of some of the most enduring mysteries surrounding the russian investigation. senior trump campaign officials were seeking information about wikileaks for feature releases, according to the special counsel's indictments. and the president referred to wikileaks more than 140 times, although now, he's claiming, i know nothing about wikileaks. we're going to have more on that

in a moment. u.s. authorities in both the obama and trump administrations made it clear they view assange as a russian intelligence asset. he represents, in their minds, a possible gold mine for the intelligence community. that's if authorities can get him to the united states and if they actually get him to talk. let's turn to a handful of experts who have dealt in this area. mimi rocha, an msnbc analyst. charlie savage, msnbc contributor. he's been on the assange beat for a very long time. and bob anderson oversaw cases involving week kikileaks, inclu the edward snowden situation. charlie, you're in the middle of reports and writing on this, i appreciate you taking a few minutes to join us here. >> no problem, chuck. >> so, this seems like a very small, actual crime that the justice department is charging him with, in comparison to all

of the other information we think he's aware of here. what are the chances assange makes it onto u.s. soil? >> well, it's not going to happen soon. it's virtually certain that assange is going to fight indictment to the united states, as far as he can go in the british court system. he'll say, this is politically motivated, this prosecution is not legitimate, there's not a real crime here, et cetera. he may not ultimately prevail, but that process can take years. and so, i don't think anyone should expect that assange is going to arrive here in the eastern district of virginia and face that trial any time soon, which also means that the special counsel investigation, which is over, anyway, will be long since over by the time he comes into american custody. >> bob, i want to ask you -- your last, i think, in the fbi, you worked specifically on snowden, is the most recent of the wikileaks or the assange-connected aspects of this. how much of an asset does the

u.s. government believe assange is for the russian government? >> well, i think that's one of the things, chuck, everybody's trying to figure out. i mean, going back, even when wikileaks started in '06, leading up to the incident you talked about earlier in 2010 with d.o.d. and state department material, i think one of the biggest things that we're trying to figure out is, is he working independently, working with a group, or has he formed an alliance or partnership with foreign intelligence? the biggest thing is trying to figure out if he'll talk and we'll know where he's coming from when it comes to intelligence organizations around the world. >> given how wikileaks became a central dumping ground for the stolen materials during the 2016 campaign, i'm curious, as somebody who was spending a lot of time working the swoednden leaks, did that suddenly raise new suspicions to you regarding

soeden and the origins of all of that, when you saw how tied into these russian intelligence thefts wikileaks found itself in? >> well, look. two things. snowden, by far, is one of the biggest national security breaches this country has ever seen. the second piece to that is, russia and the russian intelligence services are unbelievable adversaries in this space. and they definitely have the ability to put two and two together. i don't know if the information from hillary clinton and the campaign came from that at all, but there's no doubt that the fact that snowden's been sitting on their soil ever since we really went after him when he left hong kong, that that's helped this initiative. >> mimi, i want to go to the legal aspect of this a little bit. assange's lawyers are saying the only conspiracy here is the conspiracy to commit journalism. and frankly, the federal charge against him that they are seeking the extradition on -- it's not a large charge, right? i think five years max? is -- is -- are there other

charges that the government may have that their withholding and this is the only thing they have? >> well, chuck, it's possible there are other charges, but -- and this is something that i've heard people speaking incorrectly about, i want to make something clear. with extradition, whatever the u.s. requests assange to be extradited on, whatever charges, that is all he can be prosecuted on once he's here. i heard snowden -- i'm sorry, assange's lawyer say something earlier today, like, well, he can be extradited on this, but we don't know, he may then face not how it works. under extradition treaties, the way you make the request, there's a special rule that the u.s. government has to specify ahead of time the charges that the person will be facing, otherwise, the country doing the extradition would never agree to

it. >> right. >> so, and there has to be, usually, a parallel charge in the country that he's being extradited from. so, you know, does the uk have some kind of hacking crime, i assume so, so i don't think that would be a legal impediment, but as charlie said, you know, assange is likely to fight this as much as possible, and it really can take years. so, if there are other charges, we would learn about them in the extradition process, but that doesn't mean that he would be here to face them for awhile. >> well, then they're not trying to get him as a witness, are they, mimi? they have no interest in him in getting information out of him? because this isn't how you would go about -- if you thought he had information that' he s help to you in other cases, this isn't the most efficient way to get him and get that information, correct? >> well, i don't know that there was really any choice here. you couldn't make an approach to him. that would be one thing you would do, someone that's in another country that's hard to get within your jurisdiction,

you would make an approach, say, let's work something out. we can bring you here, we can work out a deal ahead of time. and that obviously wasn't going to happen here. so, i think they're at a point where they didn't have a choice. these charges, i think, have been around for awhile, obviously, it's based on conduct from a long time ago, but the statute of limitations was told because he was a fugitive, and, you know, essentially, this is the best chance they would have -- i'm sure that, you know, we don't know what prosecutors would be interested at this point, because we don't know exactly who would be handling it after the special cown semi, but the eastern district of virginia, presumably, if he had cooperation that was relevant to other matters here that have spun off from the russia investigation, they would be in a good position to question him. i'm sure they know a lot more about him than just what's contained in this charge. so, they may have leverage in that sense. and that could be something that is now possibly negotiated,

instead of going through the whole extradition process. it's just unlikely he will agree to that. >> charlie, is the timing at all interesting here? i'll put it this way. i find the timing intriguing, that within ten days of mueller being done, somebody who one might think could be helpful to mueller s mueller, suddenly, the u.s. government is able to get their hands on him. the timing with the mueller probe, what -- what's your sense of why did it happen now? why did they suddenly get assange now? >> well, the keys to getting assange were to be automobile to go into the embassy in ecuador and take him out without violating ecuadoecuador's sover? >> right. and what's changed with the government with ecuador? >> they soured on him. they took him in in 2012 and eventually granted him citizenship under one regime,

or, the process of getting citizenship under one president. a different president took over in 2017 and assange has gradually become a bigger and bigger headache for them, both diplomatically and even on small scale stuff, like having this guy with his cat living in your embassy year after year after year. they got sick of it. and they imposed a lot of rules on him. like, you can't go on the internet anymore, and you have to clean up after your cat and you can't interfere with democracy. and they decided he had broken them, including through publishing some information about the vatican recently. and so, finally, they just said, forget it, you're not a citizen anymore, brits, come get him. i don't think -- it's an interesting coincidence, it's not obvious why that would have any connection to the end of the mueller campaign. it seems to be taking place for other reasons. >> i interview eed julian assan in july of 2016, right when this stuff was being released. and i asked him about the source of his material. here's how he answered the question to me.

>> why not be fully transparent and say, look, here's the material, where it comes from doesn't change the facts in the material. but it is helpful to know that if a foreign government is involved, isn't that crucial information to the -- to civilians? >> i think that is an interesting question. the difficulty that wikileaks has, of course, is that we can't go around speculating on who our sources are. that would be irresponsible. >> you can speculate. you know the answer. well, mr. assange, you say you can't go around speculating. do you not know the answer? >> we don't give any material away as to who our sources are. it's a security matter for us, who our sources are. >> bob, as -- do you consider assange a journalist, and why doesn't he -- if you don't, why doesn't he deserve journalistic protection here? >> well, i'll tell you, i think that's one of the things that

separates our country from all the other countries in the world and it's something we need to have and we need to value. and i think what you said ea earlier with the supreme court, as long as people releasing information that hasn't been obtained through criminal intent or criminal wrongdoing in a particular inls stance, which, by the way, i think assange has done almost every step of the way, he's using this information, not for the betterment of the government or a country, but for his own political or economic gain, for whatever reason he's doing it. and i think the big key question is here, is he doing it knowingly, illegally and/or with other parties to include intelligence organizations from nations state? and that's the key question we need to ask. >> do you think -- i'm curious, as somebody who has been at the fbi and -- how soon do you think you'd get a chance to question him under this circumstance? >> yeah, no, it's a great question, and i agree with what everybody else is saying on the panel. i think it's going to be awhile before he gets back to the united states. you have to do one thing at a

time. and the biggest thing here, he's out of the embassy. and now he's into friendly intelligence organization's hands, which we work very hand in hand with. and there could be a conversation, in particular, with him and his attorneys, through intermediaries, in that country, which obviously, because, since 2012, when he barricaded himself in the ' embas embassy, we never were able to do, and that's how it usually starts, is an upfront conversation to see where you can find out if there's any other intelligence value that would help our country. >> all right. i'm going to have to leave it here. i find this fascinating. i would love to keep going, but i have a commercial break. my m mimi, charlie, bob, thank you. coming up, president trump said twice today, in all seriousness, that he doesn't know much about bike kwikileaksh is like i said i don't know much about politics or baseball or dad jokes. even with all the unbelievable things the president says, this one was a shocker. that's ahead. plus, mission accomplished? the attorney general gives credence to the spying conspiracy theory and president trump is very pleased.

to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing it's best to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪ means to fight the hardest battle, which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal? it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪ ♪ you might or joints.hing for your heart... it's the most wonderful life on earth. 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. you know that look? that life of the party look. walk it off look. one more mile look. reply all look. own your look with fewer lines. there's only one botox® cosmetic.

it's the only one fda approved to temporarily make frown lines, crow's feet and forehead lines look better. the effects of botox® cosmetic may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness may be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow, eyelid drooping and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. so, give that just saw a puppy look and whatever that look is. look like you with fewer lines. own your look with the one and only botox® cosmetic.

i know nothing about wikileaks, it's not my thing. and i know there is something having to do with julian assange. i know nothing, really, about him. it's not my deal in life. >> welcome back. for all the misleading and flat-out wrong statements by the president, this one was a big one. in the wake of julian assange's arrest, mr. trump is now trying to distance himself from wikileaks, but boy, on the 2016 trail, he seemed to know a lot about wikileaks. >> i love reading those wikileaks. this wikileaks stuff is unbelievable. it tells you the inner heart. you got to read it. they were just announcing new wikileaks and i wanted to stay there, but i didn't want to keep you waiting. i didn't want to keep you waiting. you see another one, another one came in today, this wikileaks is like a treasure trove. >> joining me now, eugene scott

from "the washington post." ruth marcus from "the washington post" and matthew continetti, editor in chief of "the washington free beacon." i want to begin, eugene, with -- it's possible -- i get the sense that maybe what the president is saying i know nothing about this, he may not have been briefed about this until after it happened. in fairness. and let's just say, i'm not just speculating on that, that may be where that's coming from. but it was interesting to see the president just completely distance himself. wikileaks was a very important part of that campaign in the last three weeks of the campaign. >> absolutely, and if it's anything like the president's time in the white house, people probably tried to brief him on it, whether or not he actually read it and spent time with it is what's up for question. but i think what people should be concerned about, especially people who supported him and backed him, he really did hold up wikileaks as if it was an

institution of integrity, especially when it came to his opponent's untegryty and now he's acting as if he never heard of it. i feel like if i was in trump's base, i would have some questions. >> i think the real -- one of the debate issues that i think is really important for our industry is, is this a journalistic enterprise? and i've -- i believe, if he had released everything all at once, he'd be on higher ground. >> well, there's two questions. one is, should we be troubled y by, worried about, how this information was obtained? i think the answer to that is yes. and then, the other question is, should we feel guilty about, troubled by, our use of it and our reporting of it during the campaign. and i think the answer to that is more complicated and it's yes but. when information is out there, however it's obtained, first of all, it's legal for us to report

it, and second of all, it's kind of, i'm going to get myself in trouble here, but incumbent on us to report it, and yet we should not feel terrific about it. >> the more information you can explain about a source, the better. any time you're dealing with tricky information. do you think he should -- do you think he has grounds as a journalist, considering how he operated in the last six months of '16? >> oh, i'd go back and kind of expand the window when we're evaluating him and whether he's a journalistic figure. the key there is the 2010 -- >> right, did he encourage that? >> and then, throughout -- including 2016, the question is, mentioned in the indictment is, did he actually participate in the obtaining of the materials? and it's in the obtaining where certain legal boundaries are crossed. and that is where i think it's -- would be useful to have assange back in the united states and stand trial, because

we'd be able to actually litigate some of these issues, which are fairly complex and we don't have hard answers to. >> this is not -- i mean, it is interesting. the government's being very careful here. i'm glad, frankly, that they're not hitting him on the publication of this stuff, because then it would get "the washington post," nbc news, "the new york times," all screaming. >> and kudos to the justice department for being a little bit restrained here. i'm sorry to interrupt you. >> yeah, i think this is where we have to be careful about not letting some of our personal opinions about assange and his character get in the way of whether or not, what he actually did is legal and what type of precedent it could set for how the government responds to journalists when it comes to our receiving information that may have come to us through sketchy means, versus how we got it, what role we were playing, what role we may have played in receiving it. because it may be in the

public's best interest, in the future, to publicize, publish some information that maybe came to us in ways that were just kind of sketchy. >> well, this is the slippery slope, ruth. it's sort of, like, okay, look, assange's behavior did seem to change. wikileaks' behavior did seem to change, did seem -- stopped being an open advocate. he criticized the panama papers and the release of those and it was like, oh, well, the only thing interesting -- the only thing that you might have disagreed with is that it had tough things about russian oligarchs. but i am worried that journal u.s.s will all be -- are you just like assange, did you participate in this theft, like, that -- that is the slippery slope concern. >> and we're not going to get ourselves off this slope, we're not going to get ourselves off this slope in this segment and really -- >> we shouldn't. >> and we shouldn't. look, we all felt very good about "the new york times" and "the washington post," started with "the new york times"

publishing the pentagon papers and felt good that the courts made clear that newspapers have the right to publish those. but we're in a different world here. we're in this cyber world where you don't just get as big as the pentagon papers leak was, you get these enormous documents that can be transferred with, you know, the click of a mouse and enormous troves of u.s. material is being made available. and the second thing that's different is, you have the potential involvement of foreign adversaries in it. that puts -- the slope has always been some what tenuous to be on when you're dealing with classified material and we want it but you know, you -- criminalize the release of it, the slope is much more slippery now. >> and we've had the change in the nature of our professional journalists. "the washington post," "the new york times," these are institutions, they are grounded in a specific place, they are more established.

>> set boundaries. >> and we would -- >> be open participants. >> i have been involved in this numerous times, watching senior editors at "the washington post" check in with officials to have debates and determine whether releases of particular pieces of information are threats to national security, and you try to be really careful and responsible there. as you point out, we're in a world where trying to be responsible isn't really an option anymore. >> let me play another quote from the president today when he was asked about assange, because he used the moment to praise his attorney general. take a listen. >> i've been seeing what's happened with assange and that will be a determination, i would imagine, mostly by the attorney general, who is doing an excellent job, so he'll be making a determination. >> he loves his attorney general right now. you know, roger stone wants to see a pardon for julian assange. >> well, we're not surprised, considering that roger stone, as

far as we know, has admitted to working with wikileaks in the past and specifically, julian assange. >> roger will simply say he thinks it's a journalistic enterprise. that's how he will argue it. >> of course, and he also had some self-interest that he's really concerned about in his future, and that will certainly shape how he thinks the president and specifically the attorney general, will respond, but i think this raises some larger questions about interest and why people want things to go the way that i do. >> all right, guys, we're going to pause the conversation here. up ahead, a first look at who is leading the pack in the two states that go a long way in determining who stays in and who gets out of the 2020 democratic nomination fight. plus, the guardians of the trump galaxy. the cabinet members who seem to be making it their top priority now to protect the president above all else. resident above all else

with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? 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. in tonight's 2020 vision, it's always a good day if we've got new presidential polls, especially if they're both from iowa and new hampshire. >> in 2016, this is the state where the political revolution took off. thank you, new hampshire. >> bernie sanders may not be feeling quite as thankful to new hampshire voters today.

he won the 2016 primary there by more than 20 points, but today, he's in second place in a new poll. poll number two of the day also has sanders in the number two spot. >> this state is where the political revolution, which is sweeping this country, began, it began in iowa in 2015 and i thank you very much. >> sanders is in second place with 16% in a new poll of likely democratic caucus goers in iowa. it is zwroe biden who is out front with 27% and, guess what? pete butte gej, coming in third in this poll, too. >> so, sanders may be leading the democratic field in early fund raise, but so far, he's not on top in the early voting states. elizabeth warren is fourth in those polls. she will sit down with chris hayes tonight on "all in." we'll be back with more "mtp

daily" after this. ily" after th. steven could only imaginem 24hr to trenjoying a spicy taco.burn, now, his world explodes with flavor. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day all-night protection. can you imagine 24-hours without heartburn? tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management.

they're the ones who see a city that can make those who live in it feel a little safer. who see cars that can talk to each other and share their best shortcuts. who see the efficient shape and design of the ocean's wonders as the future of aerodynamics. ♪ why? because they can see the infinite possibilities of the power of data flowing through our world. at dell technologies we see it too. and we can help make your digital future real so you can move the world forward in beautiful, unimaginable ways. if you'd like to transform your business, talk to us. and together we'll show the world what impossible looks like... when it's made real. when it comes to reducing the evsugar in your family's diet,m.

coke, dr pepper and pepsi hear you. we're working together to do just that. bringing you more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all. smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels and reminders to think balance. because we know mom wants what's best. more beverage choices, smaller portions, less sugar. balanceus.org

mr. president, are you pleased that your attorney general yesterday said that there was spying into your campaign in 2016? >> yes, i am. i think what he said was absolutely true. there was absolutely spying into my campaign s. in my opinion, it was illegal spying, unprecedented spying, and something that should never be allowed to happen in our country again. and i think his answer was actually a very accurate one. >> welcome back. it should be no surprise that president trump was very pleased with barr's testimony before congress yesterday. he seemed to do what the president has been doing for a long time. and barr isn't the only cabinet member that seems to be shielding the president from democratic oversight. the treasury secretary did not meet the house ways and means committee deadline to hand over the president's tax returns. the president is not just filling his cabinet with acting members, he's now got people who are acting to protect him a bit. with me now with the panel is

ned price, a former spokesperson for the national security council. he's now an msnbc national security analyst. eugene, ruth and matt are back. i want to dove tail this a little bit with the sort of -- this combination of, yes, we've got barrmnuchin, these are allies that are comfortable protecting him. but the larger issue here, the two most important security agencies in this country, homeland and defense, are being run by actings. what happens if there's a real national security crisis? >> well, it's a good question. and the trump administration has been fortunate, to date, in the sense that all of the crises they've faced have been manmade. these have been so-called emergencies at the border, these have been fire and fury with north korea that was then solved months later by president trump himself when he met with kim jong-un. this administration has never been tested in a real way when it comes to national security

and foreign policy. and just take dhs for example. as you note, it's vacant at the top. it is also vacant at the deputy level position. the commissioner of i.c.e, the cbb commissioner, the fema administrator, you know, we often think of dhs as only concerned with issues of border security, of homeland security, but there's far more to it than that. the quarter million people who work at dhs, the 240,000 men and women who work there, are concerned with disaster response, are concerned with election security, are concerned with cyber security. are concerned with aviation security. so, again, this is not fundamentally sound national security practice, but this, time and again, is what we've seen from the trump administration, when it comes to leadership, when it comes to stewardship or lack thereof. >> we're past day 100 of patrick

shanahan as acting defense secretary. we don't even have a nominee. and he's only got another 100 days that he can legally be the acting defense secretary. you've got -- it's one of these situations where, if there's a true shocking crisis, there's going to be people who are not manning the phones, because they've been moved around in different -- he's moving people around so much, nobody knows what their current job is. >> i guess the president sees it as these temporary appointments give him more flexibility, right? >> well, yes. that's overly executive. >> when you have this empty offices in the middle of these agencies, that actually devolves more power to the bureaucracy, which is often at olds wi odds trump. it is self-defeating not to have permanent personnel stationed in all of these varying cabinet posts. >> mitch mcconnell said on the whole immigration front, we don't think this is a personnel

issue. he is starting to say, hey, we've got to do something, we have to work with them, we're all to blame here, we have to work -- but -- then you had the fourth senator come out today and say no to herman cain. i think some of the senate republicans realize, they're going to take heat if it looks like people are not on the job. >> there are so many different levels of this. one is whether the right people are being put in the jobs or tried to put in the jobs, and i was very happy to see that h herman cain might be a step too far -- >> by the i w way, though, i fi it is odd they are harder on cain than moore. you could argue, there's qualifications there that moore doesn't have. >> well, as moore told us himself, he has a steep learning curve. >> yep. >> so, there's a really interesting sort of, well, does targeting one mean that the other one slides through -- >> that's what it feels like. >> well, let's see about that. the other thing is, once they

start getting riled up about making sure you have quality people in place, they just get riled up. the second thing is, whether it's good or bad to have acting people in place, i'm with matthew. you have giving up a lot of your power to the bureaucracy, they call that the deep state, if you allow these acting people to be in place. and then there is the threat of whether we have people in place to respond to emergencies. we have an acting chief of staff who is also the director of the office of management and budget. >> there's an acting director. >> but i hear that's kind of a big important job. >> yeah, absolutely. and i think it also sets the president up for more criticism, more -- lowered approval ratings, because we has people in these jobs that aren't really proven to be the best people. and perhaps i'm thinking the desire to have them acting opposed to going through a formal process -- >> tsa. let me just show an example here. tsa. the head of tsa has to be the

acting deputy homeland security director and their deputy is acting tsa. if there's a security breach at tsa, how is this going to play? >> because everything was running so smoothly before? >> tsa really isn't that important. >> it seems like it, based on -- that's how things are being treated and it's a real national security concern. >> ned, you hear from folks that are sort of the professionals, first of all, do you take matthew's point here, the irony is, if the president doesn't like the bureaucracy, he's actually doing a whole heck of a lot of ways to empower the faceless bureaucracy. >> well, what's interesting, though, chuck, is that he has installed people at the helm of some of these organization s whose hole mission, objective, has been to dismantle parts of the departments they now lead. i mean, look, rex tillerson was a great example. mike pompeii yoep has continued some of that at the department of state. the consumer financial protection board is another example. but i think now you have this tension that we have not seen

before, between career professionals who have worked for presidents across administrations, democrats and republicans, who are now being led by someone who is consist t consistently at odds with what their own people are saying. look at bill barr yesterday in the remarks he said about spying. i think people, both at the department of justice and the fbi, would be, and certainly are, aghast at the per jorty description of spying attached to what they did with the trump campaign and trump affiliates in 2016. i think they know -- i think they know that these terms are loaded. and they know that these people are truly all the president's men, almost all of them are men and they are serving one person, they're serving donald trump and they're teeing up talking points, just as bill barr did for him yesterday. >> and that's the part that i'm not concerned more small seat conservative s aren't more upse.

you have to be more loyal to him as an acting. you have less room to maneuver. that isn't how the executive branch was intended to be run. >> well, perhaps. that's one argument. the counter argument is that it's exactly how the executive branch was intended to be run. the president -- everyone works for him, and so, that's -- that's the view he holds and that's why he's led to all these actings, he's cut out the intermediary ranks. my argument is, it's not actually working well for him. but i do think there is -- he wants people with very fullsome views of presidential power. >> it also doesn't seem like the ones who are confirmed are acting all that more independently -- >> well, first round did. i would say this second round, i think, we're seeing he's getting more of what he wants. jeff sessions did not give him what mr. barr gave him. ned price, appreciate it. thank you. i know you had to be on remote. eugene, ruth, matthew, stick around. coming up, am i crazy, but

is president trump trying even harder to gaslight him? plus, so much for mid western nice. pete buttigieg has been hitting at vice president mike pence, and today, pence hit back. , and today, pence hit back.to k. 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. 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. welcome back. tonight, i'm obsessed with president trump's attempt to gaslight americans, and a reminder. here's what the term gaslight comes from. it comes from the movie of the

same name. charles tries to drive his wife crazy, in part by dimming the gaslights and then convincing her she's imagining the darkness. well, president trump seems to believe there are a lot of ingrids out there. here he is yesterday, trying to turn the lights down on the mueller report. >> as far as i'm concerned, i don't care about the mueller report, i've been totally exonerated. no collusion, no obstruction. >> actually, we haven't read one word yet of the mueller report. well, we've gotten less than a sentence. but mr. trump would have us believe bill barr's description of the report, rather than the report itself, is what matters. then there's the economy. >> look at the mess i inherited. we inherented a lot of problems. three years ago, america's company was stagnant. >> we have launched an unprecedented economic boom. >> that wouldn't happen under barack obama, that i can tell you. >> actually, the economy was already in the midst of the

longest recovery in history when president donald trump became president trump and its continued. and finally, the child separation policy at the border. >> obama separated the children, by the way. just so you understand. president obama separated the children. those cages that were shown, i think they were very inappropriate, they were built by president obama's administration, not by trump. president obama had child separation. >> actually, under president obama, families were separated only under extraordinary circumstances, if there was suspicion of trafficking of either people or drugs of some kind of fraud. and just this morning, the president tweeted this fox news graphic of a poll showing his approval rating at 55%. the trouble is, the graphic was wrong, that 55% number was the president's disapproval in the poll. now, fox news corrected its mistake this morning. you think president trump has

corrected his twitter feed? what do you think? we'll be right back.k. and home to three bp wind farms. in the off-chance the wind ever stops blowing here... the lights can keep on shining. thanks to our natural gas. a smart partner to renewable energy. it's always ready when needed. or... not. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing. 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.

welcome back. time now for the lid. sticking back. time for "the lid." this is real now. i think it is pretty clear. third place in iowa and new hampshire. he is this month's beto we'll find out, does it change every month? there is been a developing penc pence-buttigieg feud. mike pence seemed to go back at pete buttigieg.

>> i worked very closely with mayor pete when i was governor of the state of indiana. we had a great working relationship of he said some things are critical of my christian faith and about me personally. and he knows better. he knows me. >> in fact, just so you know, here is what buttigieg said. >> my marriage has made me a better man. and yes, mr. vice president, it has moved me closer to god. that's the thing that i wish the mike pences of the world would understand. if you have a problem with who i am, your problem is not with me. your quarrel, sir, is with my creator. >> what i find fascinating about this debate between pence and buttigieg, it is buttigieg trying to reclaim faith for the left in a way we have not seen other democrats do in quite some time. >> we haven't. and i think what buttigieg is

doing is what a lot of people on the left would like to see more democrats do. speak about faith and their values in a way that doesn't allow conservatives to paint the left as this godless group of people just because they dome share the same values as social conservatives when it comes to issues related to lgbt rights and abortion and other matters. and it is not just buttigieg. we're saying warren, others speak about their faith as well. and i think this will be a really interesting story. >> i find it a fascinating debate. i would like to see the two of them debate this. >> bring it on. >> we've had democrats who are people of faith who have tried to take on conservative faith issues. but buttigieg is in a, not unique position but a particularly interesting position as a person who is both a person of faith and an openly gay person going right at vice

president pence. and i thought it was interesting that the vice president said to him, you're taking on my christian faith. the fact is, as i see it, i'm not of the christian faith. that they are just two competing versions of what it mean to be christian. >> that's what buttigieg said. he said, when you have a problem with me, your problem is with my creator also being pence's creator. he's flipping it back on pepsi. he's not saying this is my religion, i'm proud of it. he's saying you're not living up to yours. >> bits who has more christian values. >> and we should be living in a pluralistic democracy where we can each sit under our own tree. this is a feud buttigieg began two days ago. he had no problem until he decided to make this a political issue and it is an effective issue for him in a democratic

primary of buttigieg is making an aggressive play for people of faith. basically, in a sincere way, i'm not questioning the sincerity of others, it is more, we knew barack obama was a man of faith. it is different though. it is different. she was also probably much more religious than people have, she ever let on. but it is something we haven't seen as open since carter. >> and it an easier time for buttigieg to make it. because donald trump, despite having the support of evangelicals and white catholics, cannot make these same appeals as having deeply held religious convictions that shape his policy in a way that many on the left are doing. so they're stepping up to the plate and trying to communicate to american voters. this is what having values look like. >> this is not a may for general

election voters of faith who might be up for grabs. this is a proimary situation. >> i agree but i would not discount this in the general election of i think it is more complicate. >> would it appeal to liberals in a general election. not to evangelicals. >> there were evangelicals during the mid terms who voted for beto because they were upset with the right. >> all right. i have to leave it here. thank you very much. up ahead, ways and means ahead,s to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪ means to fight the hardest battle, which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal? it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪ ♪ every day, visionaries are creating the future.

♪ so, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. ♪ the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ because the future only happens with people who really know how to deliver it. because the future only happens with people went to ancestry, i put in the names of my grandparents first. i got a leaf right away. a leaf is a hint that is connected to each person in your family tree. i learned that my ten times great grandmother is george washington's aunt. within a few days i went from knowing almost nothing to holy crow, i'm related to george washington. this is my cousin george. discover your story. start searching for free now at ancestry.com

. in case you missed it, former virginia governor terry mcauliffe posted this tweet. a crab sitting on top of an alligator. you get it, right? right? actually, if do you get it, could you explain it to the rest of us? he left the political twitter verse befuddled. what on earth is he trying to say? a few hours later he posted a follow-up tweet. if could i wrest an eight-foot 280 pound gatortion i would have no problem with you know who. so from this we can deduce the following. terry mcauliffe either wants to a, run against president trump, b, not run against president trump, c, wrestle president trump, or d, take president trump out for a nice seafood dinner? terry mcauliffe, please use officially sanctioned meme. don't try to improve upon them

with your ambiguous reptilian combos. if you do decide to run, don't be cagey. be cheer. you could very well put your candidacy on a path toward success. that's all we have for tonight. we'll be back tomorrow with more "meet the press." good evening. >> we have a huge show tonight. julian assange indicted by the trump justice department of conspiracy, raising questions that what does he know about russian meddling. also, the presidential governor is here on "the beat" tonight. and later, progressives rallying around pelosi power as she takes on the attorney general. we begin tonight with breaking news. the mueller probe ended but today the feds indicting a lawyer for lying to the mueller probe about his work with paul manafort. as i mentioned, this mueller probe has ended. but the feds are not done