hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in florida. we're on the road this afternoon when donald trump said he wanted to get tougher on immigration, many of us openly wondered what could possibly be tougher than separating families and putting children in cages. today we may have gotten our answer from the president's twitter feed, quote, due to the fact that democrats are unwilling to change our dangerous immigration laws we are indeed as reported giving strong considerations to placing illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities only. the radical left has an open

borders, open arms policy so this should make them happy. in just the last hour trump addressed the issue in front of reporters. >> we'll bring the illegals -- i call them the illegals. they came across the border illegally. we'll bring them to sanctuary city areas and let that particular area take care of it, whether it's a state or whatever it might be. california is saying we want more people, and they want more people in their sanctuary cities. we'll give them more people. we can give them a lot. we can give them an unlimited supply and let's see if they're so happy. they're always saying they have open arms. let's see if they have open arms. >> those comments a confirmation of a big scoop from "the washington post" last night which said, quote, trump administration officials have proposed transporting detained immigrants to sanctuary cities

in twice in the past six months. nancy pelosi area was one they wanted to target. the administration also considered releasing detainees in other democratic strong holds. trump's tweets today contradicting what had been the official response from the administration from that article from that very same piece, quote, a white house official and spokesman for dhs sent nearly identical statements indicating the proposal is no longer under suggestion. quote, this was a suggestion and was floated and rejected and ended any further discussion. to make matters worse that's not the only controversial plan being kicked around at the white house at the moment. reporting from nbc indicating that the administration, quote, discussed increasing the u.s. military's involvement in the border mission, including whether the military could be used to build tent city detention camps for migrants.

according to three u.s. officials familiar with the conversation. that's where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. ann carne, julia ainsley, the rev al sharpton host of politics nation here on msnbc, and donny deutsche is in the house. let's start with the president wanting to use the military in a way that's so outside the norm, outside the main stream that it causes all of us to explain a term to our viewers. take us through what you and kortney are reporting today. >> that's right. so a term we can all use today, the act that keeps the military

for enforcing domestic law. we can think of a lot of reasons throughout human history about why you wouldn't want your military to be used in a way like a police force. they couldn't be used to interact with immigrants. but it has been floated at the white house in recent weeks the idea of using military to build tent cities to hold more migrants. and there's been some conversations about using them to run the detention camps which would be in violation of that law. however, it is somewhat legal -- or it is legal to use them in a construction purpose. they think this is a way they could get these places up and running more quickly than going through the typical procurement process where you have to get a contract and go through the bidding process. you can use people on the ground. we know there are thousands of troops on the border doing construction projects, putting wire over fencing and doing other things to secure the border. if you put them in the places

where they are running the camps, then you are in violation of that law. it's been said and we've seen over and over again as this administration tries to go tougher, the ideas, even though they're illegal, they're starting to stick. it's important we go over everything that comes up, even if it seems like it wouldn't stand up in a court of law. because we never know what the president might try. >> even though they're illegal, they're starting to stick. i have to ask you to under score that, because it's a remarkable statement, commentary of where we are in donald trump's hard line and seemingly questionable legal immigration policies. >> anyone connecting the dots on what we heard this week can make that assessment. earlier this week we know one of the reasons that kirstjen nielsen was pushed out as homeland security secretary because she said you can't

reinstate family separation because you would go against court orders excels the executive order that the president signed himself. the excellent reporting from "the washington post" about sanctuary cities. someone within the administration told nbc news, jacob soboroff, you can't do that because it's so illegal. using troops to interact with immigrants, that's illegal. but we've seen the administration take steps already that are illegal. like trying to limit asylum seekers from claiming asylum if they enter the border illegally. that's something that they've tried before and it gets stopped in court. it doesn't seem to stop them from trying. maybe because they're looking to be tough on immigration they're not looking to be practical. they're pushing out people who are putting a check on what is practical and legal. that's why we saw the decapitation of the homeland security department this week.

the "new york times" quickly matching that post story today. and reporting on secretary nielsen's role in all of that. take us through what you know. >> the story we just published online as i've been sitting here, describes a comment that the president made at the border on his visit to calexico last week, where he was chafing against secretary nielsen's advice that he can't shut the border because it could be considered illegal. he turned to her replacement in a private conversation and said just do it, if there's a problem with the legality i'll pardon you. we heard it from three different officials. everyone was stunned by this comment and there was some concern about was he joking, which is often the case with the president, that's how he talks, but the comment stunned a lot of people that he actually has

backed off the threat to shut the border but privately he's pushing his top aides to do so. and this was an issue he was upset with nielsen about that she wasn't willing to do it. >> we have spent 22 months talking about donald trump as a subject of the investigations into russian interference and whether or not he obstructed justice. one of the big issues was his use or questions about his use of pardons. here if p we look at pardons as a practice or tool, which you have just broken if i understand what you're reporting right now, a story that says he promised someone he would pardon someone if it was illegal. take us through again the reaction. did anyone in the room say i'm not going to break the law, mr. president, even with a pardon assured and guaranteed from you? >> it wasn't in a room. it was a private one on one conversation at the border.

i think the way the conversation was relayed was complete like stunned. so i think there was not any -- it's not really clear what happens here. because it's not clear what the legal issues are with shutting the border, it's not clear what he means by shut the border. it doesn't mean that anyone would end up in jail if they followed through and would need a pardon. but it speaks to how the president wants to skirt the legalities that stand in his way and speaks to how he likes these uni lateral powers of the presidency like pardons. and it shows how he's increasingly anxious about the images of asylum seekers coming over the borders. from people i talked to at the white house, he's panicked about the situation. and this idea of invoking a pardon struck everyone as

bizarre. >> bizarre and remarkable. i was just handed a copy of this story. trump's message to homeland security official, close the border despite an earlier promise of a delay. president trump urged kevin mca lean, to close the southwesten border despite saying he was delaying a decision on that step for a year, according to three people briefed about the conversation. it was not clear what mr. trump met by his request or comment that he would pardon if he encountered any problems with the action. federal judges have blocked the administration's attempts to limit asylum seekers who enter the country, and it's not likely that mr. mcaleenan would have ended in jail. one of the people briefed on the conversation said it was unclear if mr. trump intended the comments as a joke.

can you just underscore how these sort of reactions came through to all of you. it was a one-on-one meeting as you were describing. but there has to be a sense that even people that share his philosophical views that the situation at the border is an emergency and he surrounded himself with people who are not necessarily focussed on the humanitarian tragedy at the border. even among those people, and he seems to have weeded everybody else out of the homeland security department, it seems you have three people briefed about this conversation and they're alarmed, and this is beyond the rule of law. >> i don't want to get into sourcing and who confirmed the story for us, but, yes, it's -- it was -- the comment was met with widespread alarm and wondering if he's joking. which again, a comment like

this, i mean, this is a problem with trump all the time. that's just how he talks. but i think it's indicative of him looking at a property and wanting to get around any of the legal obstacles that could stand in his way to fix it, because he thinks this is a real threat to him, this border issue and immigrants flooding into this country which relates to the sanctuary city story we were talking about, this is a small nugget in the bigger picture of how he's dealing with the issue. >> chuck rosenberg, this is a three-part -- it would seem three dominos have fallen in this story since late last night, "the washington post" reporting about his desire to release human beings into sanctuary city as some sort of pawn in his political battle of immigration. julia ainsley's superb reporting about how he wants to use the

military in effect as human toy soldiers to carry out his political goals on immigration. and now ann's reporting about dangling a pardon. we have talked about his lurches towards authoritarianism, these seem like three examples that have been brought to us by the times, the post, and nbc news in the last 12 hours, what's going on? >> i don't know precisely what's going on? but i can tell you this, historically pardons were an act of compassion and mercy. we have been talking for the last 22 months about pardons as an act of obstruction of justice and evidence of intent. now it seems, according to the times reporting and i can't wait to read it, that pardons are also a projection of presidential power in a policy-making role. and that's hard for me to

comprehend. it just doesn't fit with anything i ever knew about presidential authority or how presidents use pardons, as i said, for mercy and compassion. can i make one other point about sanctuary cities? >> please. >> so from a law enforcement perspective, i'm not an immigration expert but from a law enforcement perspective, it's often the case that our most vulnerable populations, right, include members of the immigrant communities. they come from countries like el salvador or honduras or guatemala where local police agencies aren't good and can't be trusted. criminals know that, and we don't want criminals preying on the most vulnerable people in society. so we need to encourage people to come forward to law enforcement as victims, witnesses, what they've seen. so the theory behind sanctuary

cities if you come forward, report yourself to someone in your city, you're not going to get turned into immigration and deported. i'm not making an arm per se for sanctuary cities. i'm trying to explain why we need our immigrant community to be comfortable with law enforcement and to be willing to come forward. so the notion you would punish sanctuary cities for taking this approach strikes me as crazy. >> i don't want to rush through these three stories because they're under one topic and one bucket of mayhem created by the president. we've talked about sanctuary cities, pardons, but i want to get you on the record about pushing the laws of what the military is allowed to do legally. your thoughts? >> we were very careful of this had, particularly when i ran the dea. there are things the military

can do to help, in terms of surveillance perhaps but we want to be careful in this country to not have them -- the military directly involved in law enforcement. so this notion that we are pushing on the borders -- no pun intended -- on the boundaries of what is legal and illegal in this country deeply disturbs me. what i told the men and women in law enforcement with whom i worked is that you don't want to get close to the line. you don't want to see the line. you want to be far enough away from the line where you don't need to be pardoned for some official act that you've taken. that's just a crazy notion, nicole. so i don't know precisely what we've asked the military to do. i can tell you from a law enforcement perspective that we were very, very clear that there had to be a division in our labor and that law enforcement was not permitted into -- i'm sorry that the military was not permitted into a law enforcement role, at least not a traditional

one. >> rev, i've heard you speak eloquently on some of these stories, but if you could put them together as a window into donald trump's complete abdication of seeing the state as anything separate from his sort of personal political agenda, his personal ie dee logical playing field on which to exercise pardons, use the military how he wants, punish cities that don't vote with him -- your thoughts on all of this today, rev? >> i think this is a stunning display of his flagrant disregard of the law and of his duties as president. let's remember now, we are within days of the mueller report being released, whatever they decide comes out. in the midst of all of this, he's going to talk about pardons. we're not talking about a regular president now.

we're talking about a president that's in the midst of multiple investigations where his misuse, potential misuse of pardons is a subject. why would he bring that up other than he does not regard the law as something he has to abide by, and to even suggest that -- and i agree with chuck. when pardons are supposed to be about mercy and compassion, not supposed to be about something that the president directed you to do illegally. we're talking about, i'm telling you to do something illegal and i'm going to pardon you. which means the law is not the law, it's what i decide. then to use migrants, some of whom are running from criminal behavior from threat, from all kinds of things done to them, to use them as political pawns to punish people that govern sanctuary cities or sanctuary areas, i'm going to punish them but then i'm going to use these

as pawns, as chips i can use to make a political statement. a columnist in dallas tweeted something that resonates with me. he said, it reminds me of when the freedom writers were writing in the south during the '60s around segregation and people in the south were saying we're going to get black families to move north as a vengeance to those coming out of the north during the freedom riots. this smells of the same theory and practice but what is so damaging, ni nicole, it's comin from the president of the united states. there's nothing funny or joking about this. >> rev, i want to follow-up with you. we've been on the set together for days where he called african nations bleep hole countries, you've been on set after charlottesville, we talked about

his language of immigrants and communities of colors. if you put these three pieces together, moving immigrants into the communities and districts of his political enemies, it seems to be the height or the culmination of what we've now seen for many, many months, the dehumanization of people here illegally. jeb bush described them coming here as an act of love. donald trump moving his with white house and republican party so far to the left he had to purge the entire leadership of the department of homeland security. how do we get out of this place we're in, rev? >> we have to first bring to the american public we're talking about human beings, children and their parents. we're talking about using the military against the law and their oath as law enforcement here. and at some point we've got to say, as dehumanizing as the president behaves, that is not

what this country is supposed to stand for, nor is it what we allow even the president to do. i'm going to close down the border, it's illegal but i'll pardon you. i'll use my military as my law enforcement agents to pay back my political enemies. and i'm going to use babies as pawns in my particular politics. this is not what this country should stand for and the cities of this country, republican and democrat, shouldn't tolerate it. >> donny, go. >> you can sense from florida my head is going to explode, right? >> yeah. >> i want to pick up where the rev left off. i was so sad today and i want to talk not as a political guy. as a dad, an american, human. nicole you used the word human a few times. i said to myself today, how could anybody, how could a president behave this way when we're talking about children -- give me 40 seconds for this --

because the only explanation is he's a socioowe path. these are the traits, never recognize the right of others and see their behaviors as permissible, the victim is merely an instrument to be used, no remorse, shame or guilt, they don't see others around them as people only targets and opportunities. instead of friends they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. they're callous and have no lack of empathy. they're unable to feel the pain of their victims. and readily taking advantage of them. they believe they're all pouf powerful, all knowing. no concern for others. he's talking about taking babies and nancy pelosi, you don't want illegals, here they are. all of us came from somewhere. my ancestors, people are fleeing to this country, they're not coming here going we're going to

steal from people. they're trying to get away as being sex victims, enslaved just like my ans is stocestors came away from hitler. we have to be out raged. and combination of no sense of humanity, what is he capable of doing at the expense of humans for his own needs and to bend any law, any institution to get there is the scary formula that has brought out the worst times in history. and there starts to need to be fear and outrage and not just analysis. >> donny, i have to just give the disclaimer we can't diagnose him here, but i appreciate your thoughts. i share your fear and your outrage, ann, i want to give you the last word with your giant

scoop. any sense that offering someone a pardon who has sort of that last crew standing after this giant purge of 2019 at the department of homeland security has further destabilized what feels like a fluid and shaky management structure at whoever is left running dhs? >> that's a good question. i don't know if it does that. i think it shows what the president expects of nielsen's successor, i think it shows what her -- what she would bring up to him, you can't do that, i can't do that because it's illegal didn't really move him and is not the kind of answer he wants to hear and he'll think of a way to get around it. i think it puts the pressure on -- i trip over his last name, kevin -- can you help me out? >> i have for the last 20 minutes. >> i think it puts the pressure on him because like what do you do when the president is saying, don't worry about the law, i'll

issue a pardon. so i think it could be destabilizing to him and how he follows through and doesn't fall in the same trap that nielsen fell into. in some ways it's a thankless position in the administration as many are. dhs is also a huge agency that does many other things that the president doesn't care about. another issue is nielsen was speaking at a security conference in munich that he didn't understand what she was doing there, and why she wasn't on the sunday shows and at the border. it's almost a thankless job in this administration. the pressure is on him. >> it's an incredible scoop. we're glad to have you with or without the scoop but we're glad to have you with the story landing. when we come back, on the eve of the release of one of the most anticipated investigations in history, a moment when the attorney general can use all the credibility he can muster he trots out a conspiracy theory,

how will that impact the climate of distrust in the mueller report. and mayor pete goes head to head with vice president pence. and ivanka trump is good with numbers so said her dad who was thinking about putting her in charge of the world bank but was afraid of nepotism charges. all that coming up. f nepotism cs all that coming up good, cuz i'm a little worried about my information getting out. oh, why's that? [bird speaking] my social security number is... 8- 7- 5 dash okay, i see. [bird laughing] is that your daughter? no, it's a macaw. and his name is timothy. timmy, want a cracker? timmy, do you want a cracker? [bird speaking] what do you think, kevin? no. sign up online for free. discover social security alerts. 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom... sign up online for free. is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease? preventable.

and 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened and help take control of your health. we're life line screening... and if you're over 50... call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more.

with the release of robert mueller's two year investigation into russia's interference in the 2016 election expected next week. attorney general william barr

who will determine how much of mueller's work is made public has aligned himself with the president's hardest lined conspiracy theorists on the origins of the investigation. this is the person standing between the american people and an obstruction of justice investigation so damming mueller's team insisted on stressing it didn't exonerate trump and the reality is so alarm to democrats on capitol hill that they've taken the steps of questioning barr's loyalties, democratic leadership writing a joint letter to barr that reads, quote, your testimony raises questions about your independence, appears to per pep chait a narrative designed to undermine the work of the special counsel and serves to continue the attacks on the justice department and the fbi. we reknew our request to work together prior to any release to ensure that congress receives all the report and the

underlying evidence. joining the conversation betsy woodruff and rick stengel. betsy, let me start with you. a lot of questions about why barr said what he said. but today a realization setting in that even barr might miss some of the credibility we squandered this week by peddling what robert costa said by peddling a line so far to the right of this investigation that the freedom caucus members were surprised to hear it. >> that's right. i can tell you there was significant anger and frustration within the fbi when barr made this spying comment because it essentially, you know, demonizes the work the bureau does to engage in its law enforcement mission. barr's comment frustrated people within the intelligence community who heard it as a way of trying to compare the work that they do with sort of cloak

and dagger james bond movie type commentary. rod rosenstein, of course, has taken some heat over the last 24 to 48 hours for defending barr's basic approach to handling the mueller probe but there's a difference between the way he handled these accusations of spying and the way barr did. a big part of rod rosenstein's legacy once he concludes his time as deputy attorney general is going to be the fact that he fought tooth and nail with republicans on capitol hill to keep them from getting all the materials that they wanted involving the mueller probe. the view in the justice department, of course, is that congressional republicans wanted those materials not necessarily just out of pure motives regarding oversight but also potentially to, in some way, hinder the investigations that were ongoing. rosenstein, to my knowledge, i'm not aware of any time rosenstein used the word spying to describe judicially authorized

surveillance the way that bill barr did. having barr be the person who's the new face of the justice department's management of the way the russia investigation finally closes up, shows that there's definitely going to be a change and potentially tougher relationships between fbi headquarters and main justice. >> chuck rosenberg, explain this to me. they are about to release the most politically charged report in recent doj history. if there's something this consequential that's come out of doj in recent months or years, i can't think of what it is. they're about to do that. they need all the credibility they can muster if they're going to redact a word. we know they're going to redact more than that. the sitting attorney general throws the deputy attorney general, who's out yesterday for reasons still a mystery for me, spinning as fast as he can for

barr. it's his signature on the fisa reauthorizations that barr said amount to spying occurring on the trump campaign. what's going on? what's going through -- what is rod rosenstein doing? >> i can't imagine he's very happy right now, nicole. remember bang when michael cohen had his home and office and hotel room searched by the fbi? we spoke on your show about why words matter so much, calling it a raid connotes one thing calling it a court authorized search warrant conotes another. jim comey had it spot on the other day, this is court ordered surveillance. spying has a different connotation. i cannot, for the life of me, understand what the attorney general is trying to connote by calling it spying. maybe he made a mistake, maybe he misspoke, maybe it was

wreckless, maybe it was intentional. but if it was intentional, that's troubling to me. the fbi does not spy on americans. they receive authorizations from courts to conduct surveillance. by the way, nicole, to your point it's the attorney general of the united states who every morning in his office authorizes those warrants to go to the fisa court where they're reviewed by article 3 independent federal judges who then sign them. so this is a mystery to me. >> you know what, i just want to try to pin you down because i've been asking this question for three days now. and former national security and law enforcement officials tell me that spying isn't a word that law enforcement officials use amongst themselves, it's not a word cia officials used, it's a word they used to describe hostile adversaries, like the chinese spying on the president at pllg mar-a-lago. we would never use the word

spying. the only people that use that word are donald trump, devin nunes and sean hannity. so how did that word end up in his lexicon in talking about the orbeg origins of the russia investigation? >> you're not going to have a difficult time pinning me down on this, nicole, because i agree with you completely. in all my years in law enforcement, many spent on the national side of law enforcement, i have never heard the term spying applied to what we do. we do, to reiterate, court authorized, court ordered, electronic surveillance or physical surveillance or execute search warrants with court permission. we do not spy. and so, whatever he might have been thinking, it sends a terrible message. and i know betsy's reporting is right. folks at the fbi, folks in the intelligence community are deeply troubled by this characterization of their work. i'd love to hear from the

attorney general of the united states what he was thinking, because i cannot figure it out. >> julia ainsley, we don't know if he's still thinking about accusing american law enforcement, intelligence agencies of spying but we doe know they're likely putting the finishing touchines on their blk redactions, how's that going or the timing of what we're expected to see in the mueller report next week? >> nicole, all bets are on next week. although i think friday is -- we've done calculations that william barr is a catholic, so good friday might be out of a possibility of time we would see it released. he did say within a week, and he said that wednesday in his testimony. so we would imagine it next monday, tuesday, or wednesday. so reporters here are still here around the clock, waiting for something. it's just as tense, i would say actually even more tense, then when we were waiting to find out that mueller had concluded his

report and would be bringing it to the justice department. it's so important to see what comes out because as chuck and others have pointed out, this ultimately does fall to -- does fall to william barr, because of the rewriting of the special counsel regulations after kenneth starr in the '90s put so much on william barr. and it seemed from his testimony this week that he would welcome a court fight before he would voluntarily unredact anything he thinks falls into one of those four categories that he thinks needs to be redacted. he has underlined in the past that he's working with rod rosenstein as he goes through this and working with mueller's office. of course, working with rod rosenstein makes us throw up our hands because it's hard to figure out at this point where rod rosenstein stands. does he agree with barr that perhaps there was unauthorized surveillance or is he on the side of the rod rosenstein who signed the fisa documents in the first place? so a lot of questions, but our money is on next week for us to try to get this redacted version

of the report, and then we'll see where the court fight goes after that. >> betsy let me give you the last word what we're likely to see on the obstruction of justice report, which would appear from the tea leaves we're able to leave, may be the most fullsome side of the report, there's a lot of interviews with white staffers, reporting on the president's conduct, barr ill e illuding to the fact that the president's reputation wouldn't be taken into consideration and he said in the past he would make decisions about privilege. any sense -- i've been told that laid out chronologically marshalling the evidence of obstruction which we know is there from barr's letter it could be devastating to this president. >> there shouldn't be anything classified when it comes to questions about obstruction of justice. because just the act of the president trying to tell the doj to hold its fire on particular investigations should not fall under any sort of classification level. one of the biggest questions

involving the obstruction of justice portion of the report is going to be how much we get from don mcghan, the former white house counsel. we know he cooperated extensi extensively over numerous interview sessions with mueller's team, spoke for hours and hours with his investigators. seems there's little don mcghan wouldn't open up about. he would have the keys to the kingdom when it comes to this question of whether the president tried to obstruct justice. the biggest question isn't what he said, but will we be able to see what he said or will barr determine since he was the white house counsel every conversation is covered by executive privilege. >> it's going to be interesting. julie, chuck and betsy, thank you for spending time with us. after the break, mayor pete baits the vice president into a

debate on equality. bate on equa? got it. ran out of ink and i have a big meeting today. and 2 boxes of twizzlers... yeah, uh... for the team... the team? gooo team.... order online pickup in an hour. and, now buy one hp ink get one 30% off at office depot officemax.

mayor pete buttigieg will officially kick off his 2020 presidential campaign this weekend, and it looks like mayor pete's ability to engage the vice president in a debate about faith and equality may be helping to fuel a surge in early polls. in the latest iowa poll he's ranked third behind joe biden and bernie sanders. he's making his current splash in a debate with the vice president over an issue of gay rights and religion. pence weighed in on their clash this morning. >> i've known mayor pete for many years we worked closely together when i was governor and considered him a friend. and he knows i don't have a problem with him. >> he argues that your quarrel is with him as a gay man and

that he says, i was born this way and this is the way god made me. that's not your belief? >> i think pete's quarrel's with the first amendment. >> how so? >> all of us in the country have the right to our religious beliefs. >> it's what the vice president does with that faith that mayor pete takes issue with. >> i'm not critical of his faith. i'm critical of bad policies. i don't have a problem with religion. i'm religious too. i have a problem with it being used as a base to harm people, especially in the lgbtq community. i'm not interested in feuding with the vice president. if he wanted to clear it up, he could come out and say it shouldn't be legal to discrumb against anybody in this country for who they are. joining the conversation kimberly atkins.

rick stengel let me start with you, though, and ask you, we've been watching mayor pete, i made my admiration for some of his early moves around hot button polarizing issues in the press clear. he seems to have baited the vice president into a debate that, in my view, he's winning. >> i think you're right about that, nicole. the secret of presidential politics we don't vote for can'ts based on their policy we vote for candidates based on how they make us feel. part of mayor pete's draw is how he makes people feel about being an american. talking about religion in a way we talk about the constitution. martin luther king said the constitution is a promissory note that hasn't been fulfilled. pete is saying it's about how we feel. and that's how he's critical of the vice president not because

of his religious beliefs but because of how he's acting on it. particularly with the democratic party when barack obama got the nomination in 2006 z, it's the rhetoric they're using. and mayor pete is using a rhetoric that talks about the potential of america and makes people feel good about america and that's why he makes people feel good in the polls. >> he's also doing something unobvious. the obvious play would be to bat at donald trump but he went for pence on an interesting issue. what do you think? >> i think this is an amazing product. i'm going to call him a product, a brand for a second. when you look at the brand attributes, he's a road scholar, harvard, afghan vet, gay, religious, traditional in the way he lives his life and obviously brilliant. there's two paths for him and he's going to do both that i think is important as a

candidate. he's the only one that has both of them. on the one hand this country is ready for a little nice. there's such vitral, meanness, division, but yet you need strength to beat donald trump. sometimes nice and strong don't go in the same sentence. what i see in this young man, because he's a vet, because of the way he carries himself, there is strength and confidence, but wrapped in the this i can argue with you and fight with you and do it in almost a laser like way but it's still two people talking and that's what this country is looking for. this guy has the right stuff. the fact he's at 9 or 11% already after a couple town halls. we know that's cumulative, the more you rise in the poll, the more attention you get, and those numbers go up. it's early on but if i'm looking at a shelf of candidates and looking at the detergent that is

pete buttigieg, that's got some extra fabric softener in it, i'll tell you. >> we just put a poll up if you're in your car, it had biden, sanders, mayor pete in the top three spots but i want to ask you about the next two, kamala harris and elizabeth warren coming in. they're not making as big of a splash, but it's my understanding they're making inroads, one can argue in meaningful ways in these battleground states, infrastructure, campaign fund-raisi fund-raising. what do you make on our take of this early snapshot? >> the key word in what you said is early. i keep reminding folks that this far out in previous presidential election cycles we were talking about people like rudy giuliani and scott walker and jeb bush. and we know how those turned out. so it is still very early. but at the same time, yes, i

think it is certainly not in any way, time to call out or count out some of the other candidates, including senator harris harris and senator warren. you see a lot of energy around that. actually it's interesting that the more folks talk about mayor pete buttigieg, the more others talk about, you know, on policy he's saying the same things as senator harris or senator warren in a lot of ways and he's still getting a lot more attention. i think there is a lot of energy for them at this point. i think they are garnering the attention. they're taking different paths. senator warren is very policy focused. she's bringing out policy specifics and trying to connect with voters that way. senator harris is trying to build a very inclusive ground of support. she talks to people from different communities, regardless of what state she's in, even when she's in states

like new hampshire. iowa, where diversity is not the first things you think of when you think of those states, she's reaching out to them so they're all using different ways to reach and garner that support so i think it's early but you can't count anybody out yet. >> so much more to say about this bursting field of 2020 democrats. we'll sneak in a break. more on the other side. more on the other side i can't believe it. that we're playing "four on four" with a barbershop quartet? [quartet singing] bum bum bum bum... pass the ball... pass the rock.. ...we're open just pass the ball!

no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. yea. [quartet singing] shoot the j! shoot, shoot, shoot the jaaaaaay... believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent if you have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture now might not be the best time to ask yourself are my bones strong? life is full of make-or-break moments. that's why it's so important

to help reduce your risk of fracture with prolia®. only prolia® is proven to help strengthen and protect bones from fracture with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip, or tongue swelling; rash; itching; or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia® as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium, serious infections, which could need hospitalization, skin problems, and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. are you ready? ask your doctor how prolia® can help strengthen your bones. this is the family who booked the flight, ♪ who saved by adding a hotel, which led to new adventures, ♪

that captured their imaginations ♪ and turned moments into memories. with flights, hotels, activities and more for your florida vacation, expedia has everything you need to go. we're back. rev, i was dying to get you in on both topics, mayor pete, i know he wowed you last week at your conference. but this idea that others who have chosen a different path, senators harris and warren taking more of a policy path and a ground game, what do you make of this early snapshot of the field? >> you know, i think that one of the things that mayor buttigieg has done that's very wise is by bringing this debate about the governor -- former governor, now

vice president pence, reminds americans that there was the baker case that went all the way up in the courts about baker having the right to deny gays getting served by him was in indiana with pence on the side of the bias there. so we're not talking about someone that can now do an interview and say i believe in everybody's rights when he fought against that case. because if you can fight that a baker has a right to say i'm not serving gays, next he'll say blacks, next he'll say browns. that is a very serious issue that i think mayor pete brought up that is going to resonate and come back and haunt the vice president. i also think that he has skills, i'm talking about the mayor now. i saw him at our convention at the national action network. he was dealing with hundreds of black activists, civil rights workers, browns and progress

i've whites. when they came out they were polite. when he left they were standing and clapping. i think he has skills. i think kamala harris has done the same in other areas. i judge political figures and public figures by when you can go into areas that is not your regular area, it's not your sweet spot, it's not your cheering crowd, and you get respected and in some cases enthusiasm. and i've seen the two of them do that. i know it's early, but sometime in a boxing match if you win the first three or four rounds you're at least ahead, even in a ten-round fight. >> he does something, to go back to what you both were saying, that i think america wants right now. donald trump as political scientists will say was the first declinist in american history to win the presidency. that is the first person to say america is getting worse, the american dream is over. that used to be the death knell

of a candidate. now mayor pete and the others r speaking to our better angels. they're saying the future is better than the past. that will be a very compelling message to so many americans against that declinist vision of donald trump, which is a harsh vision. he's making america worse day by day. >> we're going to sneak in a break, don't go anywhere, we'll be right back. break, don't go anywhere, we'll be right back. next thing i know, i hit the ground. completely shattered my pelvis, in the middle of the woods. i called my wife, she thought i was jokin'. i said, "man, i'm not... i'm not." i was so lucky that day... saved my life. (vo) there for you when it matters most. get unlimited on the best network, with apple music included. and save big when you switch. only on verizon. oh, wow. you two are going to have such a great trip. thanks to you, we will. this is why voya helps reach today's goals... ...all while helping you to and through retirement. can you help with these?

we're more of the plan, invest and protect kind of help... voya. helping you to and through retirement. openturning 50 opens theuard. door to a lot of new things... like now your doctor may be talking to you about screening for colon cancer. luckily there's me, cologuard. the noninvasive test you use at home. it all starts when your doctor orders me. then it's as easy as get, go, gone. you get me when i'm delivered... right to your front door

and in the privacy of your own home. there's no prep or special diet needed. you just go to the bathroom, to collect your sample. after that, i'm gone, shipped to the lab for dna testing that finds colon cancer and precancer. cologuard is not right for everyone. it is not for high risk individuals, including those with a history of colon cancer or precancer. ibd, certain hereditary cancer syndromes, or a family history of colon cancer. maybe i'll be at your door soon! ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers.

my thanks to kim, rick, the rev and donnie and to all of you for watching, thank you so much. that does it f our hour. "mtp daily" with my friend chuck todd starts right now. >> have they shut down the border of your show yet? they haven't shut down the border of my show. if it's friday, the white house's latest plans are bordering on illegal.