thrill of a lifetime to have jeff daniels onset. my thanks. steve kornacki is in for chuck. thanks for that. breaking news, the white house

directs doppln mcgahn to defy a subpoena. the first republican lawmaker that says the president committed an impeachable act. how will democrats respond. the president escalates attacks on the former vp amid some potentially dire poll numbers. if it is monday, it is "mtp daily." good evening. i am steve kornacki in new york, in for chuck todd. we begin with a heck of a lot of breaking news, some of it ratcheting up pressure even on democrats, but some potentially increasing pressure on the white house. president trump has now directed his former white house counsel don mcgahn, widely considered a star witness in bob mueller's report to defy a congressional subpoena essentially directing him not to testify in a hearing that had been scheduled tomorrow before the house judiciary

committee. a source on the committee tells nbc news they're going to hold this hearing anyway. in a letter from the white house to the committee chairman, jerry nadler of new york, the current white house counsel writes this, quote, department of justice has advised me that mr. mcgahn is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony with respect to matters occurring during his service as a senior adviser to the president. this is the latest escalation in what is now all out war between democratic investigators and the president where we just got word that a federal judge has ruled in a case against the president, this case involving a subpoena for financial records. the white house's refusal to comply with multiple demands has more than a few house democrats publicly suggesting it may push them closer to impeachment. this news amid another major development that could ratchet up pressure as the first republican congressman, justin amash of michigan breaks with

his party, says the president's conduct in his view is impeachable. amash is doubling down, despite major backlash from the president and fellow republicans. so the big question now on the two big stories is what do democrats do amid the pressure, what do democrats in leadership do and democrats on the house judiciary committee do as well. in a moment, i am going to be joined by a top house democrat that's both a member of leadership and a member of the house judiciary committee, but we kick it off first with nbc justice correspondent pete williams. pete, thanks for joining us. in this letter that the white house is sending to the house judiciary committee saying they're telling mcgahn not to appear, they're saying they're acting as past administrations of both parties have in terms of claiming executive in a circumstance like this. walk us through what they're claiming and if that statement is accurate. >> so it is not executive privilege here, it is something

beyond that, it is executive privilege plus. what the justice department says is that for at least the past 8 administrations, including the democratic administrations of carter, clinton and obama, the justice department's position has been that presidential advisers, close advisers have absolute immunity from being compelled to testify before congress. what the justice department says is that this is the view basically it has had since early 1970s. it goes to separation of power issue, that congress can no more compel the president himself to show up and testify than the president could order some member of congress to come to the white house. and they say the same thing is true of a president's closest advisers. that's thing one. thing two they say is it is equally valid after the president or after one of his advisers leaves office because of the need to protect confidentiality of these discussions in the oval office

about a president's duty. for those reasons, the justice department says mcgahn cannot be compelled to testify before congress and he also -- the opinion says if he stiffs congress on the subpoena, he can't be prosecuted or sued civilly. >> you say cannot be compelled. is there any room if mcgahn wanted to appear voluntarily or does this shut down any possibility for the time being that he would appear? >> he could. he could say thank you, i know you don't want me to testify but i want to do it anyway. that doesn't seem very likely but in theory, a person could do that, that's right. >> we mentioned this in the open. this is coming out in the last five minutes i think. we have a ruling from a district court judge. this is about a dispute between the president and the house oversight committee. the house oversight committee is looking for financial records from the president. that court ruling in the last

few minutes against the president and in favor of the oversight committee. remind us what this is about, whether it has any bearing on the broader question of subpoenas we're discussing. >> no, it doesn't on the broader question of immunity about people, this is about documents. this goes back to michael cohen's testimony when he said the president would fudge the value of his assets, he would rate them highly when trying to get a loan, say look how well i'm doing, rate them lower when came time to paying his taxes. that was his claim. remember during the hearing he dramatically showed some financial records, so the committee asked the accounting firm for the president and some of his companies for records going back to 2011, and they said one of the things they wanted to check is whether the internal revenue service is following the policies it has about how presidential tax returns are handled. the president's lawyers hit back and said look, the justice department investigates crimes, potential crimes, congress

doesn't. you're just sort of fishing around and you can only do this for an official legislative purpose and we don't have to comply. today the district judge said you do. he said courts have to assume that congress is acting in furtherance of its constitutional responsibility to legislate. in other words, courts have to defer to the congressional judgment about whether congress needs this information for its investigative purposes. the committee says the records will assist in monitoring the president's compliance as well with the forneign emoluments clause, saying presidents can't accept favors from states or foreign countries. for all these reasons in how many pages is it, 41 page opinion, judge meta says the accounting firm has to turn over the records. by the way, the trump administration said if you're going to rule against us, judge, put a stay on your own ruling so

we can appeal, and the judge said no, i'm not going to stay my opinion. i don't think you have a good chance on appeal. this as of now is in effect. >> pete williams, a lot of legal developments here in the last hour or so. thank you for joining us, helping us break that down. joining us now, somebody in the heart of the fight over don mcgahn's testimony, rhode island congressman david cicilline, member of the house judiciary committee and member of the house democratic leadership, chairman of the democratic policy and communications committee. congressman, thank you for taking a few minutes. let me start on the news. you had a hearing scheduled tomorrow, you were hoping to hear from don mcgahn. the white house says they're telling him not to show up. what do you do now? >> well, obviously we hope mr. mcgahn will appear tomorrow, the claim of immunity which is a newly created claim, i think the white house recognizes executive privilege doesn't apply since mr. mcgahn testified for 30 hours and you can't apply

executive privilege after you disclosed the communications. so now they're making this really broad claim that essentially says the president and his team are immune from congress before congress. that's legally incorrect and certainly a court will have to ultimately decide that. let me be clear, if don mcgahn doesn't testify, it is time to open impeachment inquiry. the president engaged in ongoing effort to impede our ability to find the truth, collect evidence, to do our work, and this is preventing us from finding the facts and doing our work in terms of oversight, and i think we now have seen a pattern where the white house is continuing an effort to impede our search for the truth. no one is above the law, including the president of the united states, and we expect mr. mcgahn to come before the committee and testify. >> let me make sure i heard you correctly. if mcgahn does not show up tomorrow before your committee, you say it is time for democrats to begin an impeachment proceeding? >> an impeachment, absolutely.

we are left with no other choice. this is a president who according to the mueller report engaged in ten acts of obstruction of justice, who tried to get witnesses on his staff to lie, who has attempted to impede the investigation in very fundamental ways, and every effort we made to collect evidence, to produce documents, hear from witnesses this white house has blocked. there comes a point we are left with no choice but to begin inquiry so we can get information we need to make an informed judgment at the end of that process. >> we mention you're a member of democratic leadership in the house. do your fellow members share your view if don mcgahn doesn't testify tomorrow, it is time to begin an impeachment inquiry? >> that is my view. i don't know that it is shared by other members of the democratic leadership. i'm a member of the judiciary committee and i have experienced firsthand frustration are not getting the information we need in the face of compelling evidence of misconduct by the

president. we have to uphold the rule of law not only as relates to president trump but future presidents. if we allow this president to ignore the rule of law, defy lawfully issued subpoenas, we're not only allowing him to behave badly but sending a message to future presidents. we have responsibility to stand up to rule of law, protect the constitution, make sure we take steps necessary to vindicate those important principles. >> so you say it would be time to open impeachment inquiry, say you're speaking out now, are you calling for a meeting of the house democratic caucus? >> if mr. mcgahn doesn't appear, i will argue to my colleagues and the committee chair i believe the time is for that inquiry. that decision isn't mine alone. we saw the mueller report, and beginning our work, have done this in a serious, sober way, we didn't rush to judgment. we said this is a damning

report, substantial evidence of misconduct, but we need the rest of the report, unredacted support, all of the supporting materials and hear from witnesses. we approached this in the sober, most serious way, in the face of a president and white house attempting in every way to impede our access to information, to continue to cover up, conceal from american people and congress what the truth is, i think we may be forced into a position to open formal inquiry to facilitate collection of evidence we need to see. >> you talk about importance of process. two weeks ago, may 8th, your committee voted to hold william barr in contempt. there's not a next stop of what that would be, bringing that before the full house, having the full house vote to hold him in contempt, then pursuing some sort of legal avenue. we heard about old methods the house used to have to enforce contempt citations. you're saying if you're ready to

pursue impeachment now, you consider that process what, a dead end? >> no. the opening of an impeachment inquiry is what happens when the committee begins a formal process of considering the question of impeachment. that's during that process that you compel testimony of witnesses and compel production of documents, hold hearings. that's the process i am suggesting should begin if mr. mcgahn doesn't appear. we would still be required to compel witnesses who tee fdefy subpoenas, we would have to bring that to the floor, but it is done in context of impeachment inquiry hear than in normal oversight responsibilities. >> sounds like you don't consider it precondition to launch impeachment inquiry going through the process here of full house vote on contempt. >> no, no. in fact it may well be the face if impeachment inquiry is open, we are still obligated to litigate efforts by the white house to stop us from getting documents and witnesses. there's no reason to think if we

were opening inquiry they would suddenly cooperate. my guess the president will continue an effort to conceal from the american people and hide information from the american people. our fight to get to the truth, to be sure that we demonstrate no one is above the law and compel production of witnesses and documents will continue, it will just be in context of open inquiry on question of impeachment rather than the traditional oversight responsibilities. >> some of your colleagues or fellow democrats have indicated that one of the reasons they may be reluctant or have been reluctant to go forward with impeachment inquiry is the idea it would not be seen as a broadly bipartisan move. you've had democrats calling for it, close to calling for it in some cases. until this weekend, haven't had a republican, now you have justin amash from michigan saying he considers the president's acts impeachable. do you consider justin amash, one member out of the republican conference coming forward saying enough to declare it bipartisan

or do you think your colleagues need more than one republican to join you in what you're talking about now? >> no question he's a republican, it is officially bipartisan, but the reality is it is typically the case that these inquiries are often when they begin are not bipartisan. it is after production of evidence, after hearing of testimony from witnesses that you expect that if evidence supports impeachment action it will be bipartisan. it is not necessarily bipartisan at the inception. what you want is bipartisanship at the time congress and the house is going to move forward with impeachment. i think we would expect if we opened inquiry, began to conduct hearings, we would not only bring the mueller report to life, tell the american people the story, but they would hear from witnesses that would have some impact on our colleagues as well. >> again, this hearing you were scheduled for at your committee to hear from don mcgahn, right now, the committee is indicating it is going forward. you say if mcgahn is not there, you're ready to call for

impeachment inquiry. do you expect colleagues on your side, echoing your call on that committee tomorrow? >> i hope so. i think there are a number of members of the committee increasingly frustrated with our inability to get witnesses before the committee and for the white house to produce documents necessary to do our work and we simply cannot sit by, allow this president to destroy the rule of law, to subvert the constitution, ands we have a responsibility. we took an oath. if mr. mcgahn doesn't testify tomorrow, i think it is appropriate for us to move forward with an impeachment inquiry to begin the process to compel production of witnesses and documents to make an informed judgment. otherwise, we surrender our ability to make an informed judgment because the white house continued to prevent us from getting information, from hearing from witnesses, impeding the ability of witnesses to come before the committee and testify under oath. we cannot allow this to continue. we have tried in every way to

accommodate the administration in making requests, and been as patient as anyone can be, but we have a job to do, and this now would constitute a pattern if tomorrow don mcgahn doesn't testify at the direction of the president. this would be an ongoing pattern to cover up, conceal from the american people the full truth and some suggestion that the president of the united states is above the law and we simply cannot tolerate that. >> david cicilline, member of the house judiciary committee and member of house democratic leadership. thank you for taking a few minutes with us. ahead, we have much more, especially after the breaking news you just heard there, a member of house democratic leadership telling us if don mcgahn does not testify tomorrow, he says it is time to open impeachment inquiry. the republican that says the president's conduct is impeachable, and now in response to his tweets, a vow to go after justin amash in a primary from the pro-trump right. stay with us. e thpro-trump right. stay with us

be right back. with moderate to severe crohn's disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.

you know those butterflies aren't actually in the room? hey, that baker lady's on tv again. she's not a baker. she wears that apron to sell insurance. nobody knows why. she's the progressive insurance lady. they cover pets if your owner gets into a car accident. covers us with what? you got me. [ scoffs ] she's an insurance lady. and i suppose this baker sells insurance, too? progressive protects your pets like you do. you can see "the secret life of pets 2" only in theaters.

"the secret life of pets 2" the wifi that set just raised the bar again. introducing xfinity xfi advantage. it comes with everything you love about xfi. the best speed, coverage and control. but it doesn't stop there, you also get enhanced network security, safer browsing, and more. plus it helps to optimize your network's performance. giving you the best coverage from attic to basement. so you can focus on streaming your favorites. not finding a signal. make the best wifi even better,with xfi advantage. simple, easy, awesome.

plenty of news tonight at the intersection of the white house, congress and with don mcgahn directed not to testify before the house judiciary committee tomorrow. also as we mentioned, republican congressman justin amash doubling down on his move to break with his fellow republicans and republican conference on the mueller report, says trump committed impeachable acts. let's break it down with some smart people onset. er lean a maxwell, msnbc political analyst, john today todd -- todd horowitz. he is on the house judiciary committee. gabe, he said if don mcgahn doesn't show up tomorrow and doesn't look like don mcgahn is showing up, he is calling for house democrats to begin impeachment inquiry. that would get the ball rolling

to impeachment. >> absolutely and that's a significant thing he told you there. the question that you asked him, will overseen yor members of the judiciary committee or senior members of leadership go that far. and the broader question that cicilline and other members of the house caucus, do people understand the difference between impeachment inquiry and impeachment overall. big part of what they said for months if not years, we're not going forward with impeachment unless the overall country can stand for it. i don't think that the vast majority of people understand the difference, that an inquiry is asking the question, should we go down this road of impeachment. but it is a legal maneuver to compel more testimony. >> that's an interesting point, too. it was in 1998 when republicans were trying to decide what to do with the starr report, month before the midterm elections, republican controlled house voted to open an impeachment inquiry against bill clinton. there were no judiciary committee hearings before that midterm, tried to make that

distinction that gabe is talking about and suffered a historic backlash in the midterm election. what's the strategic calculation for democrats? >> i think they have to keep history in mind, that's always true. but i think the set of facts we are dealing with here are so distingdi distinct from the '90s and clintons, voters are smart enough to figure it out. if justin amash is the only one that said i read all this information and it is troubling to me to the point where i'm using a word like impeachable, then the american people may follow suit, if the democrats in congress can layout as the congressman said all of the troubling facts in volume two, and there are troubling facts in volume two. to the benefit of the white house, they benefitted from the fact most americans don't have time to read 500 pages of legal analysis. but the facts are not going to change just because the american people have not read them yet.

>> so the argument from zerlina and cicilline, the facts won't change but politics will change if you have hearings. right now, impeachment does not poll well. do you think that would change if you had hearings? >> no, i don't. i think it is uncommonly weak argument to launch impeachment inquiry on. it is a fact of american history that white house staff, not talking cabinet members, not talking about cabinet departments that are overseen by congressional committees that have oversight responsibility, white house staff that works directly for the president has been historically not viewed as subpoenaable, owing to the fact that the congress and president are co-equal in power and there's separation of powers issue. the idea that you would go down an impeachment inquiry path on grounds that the congress has subpoenaed the former white house counsel and the white house said he will not appear,

he cannot be compelled to appear, they're not making that up out of whole cloth as you said. eight administrations held to this. democrats and republicans held to the standard that the white house staff which is an extension of the president, is not confirmed by the house, doesn't work for the house, doesn't report to the house just as the house doesn't report to the president, cannot be compelled to testify. >> you're making their case on this question of mcgahn. my sense from cicilline and comments he made, too, this would be a broader claim. he talked about this in terms of the white house's refusal on tax returns. this was house ways and means committee citing a 1924 law that seems to say any american asked to give over tax returns -- >> it does say, yes. >> he said the other day that their actions seem to be moving impeachable direction, barr not testifying before one committee. seems they're making a broader claim there. i guess my question is in terms

of how this would play to the public, does the public see these distinct issues as adding up to something big or does the public still look at this, say mueller, russia, was he a russian algent or not? >> the public has no idea who don mcgahn is. it is great for citizens to be deep in the weeds when they can be. for the most part, the case the democrats are trying to make, you can argue over whether it is successful as you say is a broader question of stonewalling. white house stonewalling into the inquiries. the question is whether the legal, narrow legal reason they might give might be just because of the mcgahn refusing to testify. the overall point again is russia, trump, stonewalling the investigations. the question is i think whether they can make the case this is specifically about the stonewalling part, the white house refusing testimony and refusing to comply with requests for investigation and not about the broader russian question. you look at what trump is saying, he continues to say no

collusion, no obstruction, let's move on. >> that's my point. the tax returns, that's a serious constitutional matter. if congress has the right under law to subpoena tax returns and he refuses to give them over, we have a constitutional crisis. we have a confrontation between the executive branch and legislative branch that is hard to sort through. that's why it is important if you want to be serious about this to go at things. what the white house is doing, we're not complying with anything. some of the things they're saying they won't comply with they have right to say they won't comply with, and others they don't have the right to say. if the house doesn't divide it up to make the strongest case by going with cases almost unimpeachable in this sense, they're going to muddy waters, allow trump to say they're going at me, chasing me, doing what they can to get me. >> this is a question. we came into the hour thinking

one of the questions was on the republican side, would there be other republicans mimicking what justin amash said, and listening to david cicilline, are there going to be more democrats in the next 24 to 48 hours if mcgahn doesn't show up that start saying impeachment inquiry. democrats are welcoming congressman amash's public declarations that trump committed impeachable acts. among republicans, a different response. less than 24 hours of making that statement, a primary challenger came forward. is he going to lose his seat over what he is saying now. we head to the big board next. w we head to the big board next. [ paper rustling ] exactly, nothing. they're completely different people, that's why they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual. they'll only pay for what they need! [ gargling ] [ coins hitting the desk ] yes, and they could save a ton. you've done it again, limu.

only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ walkabout wednesdays are back! get a sirloin or chicken on the barbie, fries, and a draft beer or coca-cola - all for just $10.99. hurry in! wednesdays are for outback. outback steakhouse. aussie rules. wednesdays are for outback. metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. and i treat my mbc with everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment for a relentless disease. verzenio + an ai is proven to help women have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. diarrhea is common,

may be severe, and may cause dehydration or infection. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. serious liver problems can occur. symptoms may include tiredness, loss of appetite, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. blood clots that can lead to death have also occurred. talk to your doctor right away if you notice pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain or rapid breathing or heart rate. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low red and white blood cells and platelets, decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss. i'm relentless. and my doctor and i choose to treat my metastatic breast cancer with verzenio. be relentless. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio.

it is very disturbing. this is what you would expect from justin. he never supported the president, i think he is just looking for attention. >> i think he's dead wrong. if you look at the mueller report, it is clear there was no collusion and obstruction. how somebody can read it and find something different, maybe they were looking for something that's not there. >> those were two of the highest ranking republicans in the house with harsh words for fellow republican congressman justin amash from michigan. national fallout is hitting amash, could soon be followed by local impact. the question here with amash again, less than 24 hours after he put that series of tweets out there saying the president committed impeachable acts,

first republican member of congress to do that got a primary challenger. a primary challenger said i'm running against amash in the republican primary in the third district and doing it as a pro-trump republican. let's take a look. can justin amash weather that kind of storm in his district, his district in western michigan around grand rapids, that's a traditionally republican part of michigan. trump won this area by nine points in 2016 over hillary clinton. romney won by seven in 2012. in the primary, this was not a natural fit for trump. this was one of the weaker areas. cruz won the district, trump barely edging out kasich. not necessarily at the beginning of the 2016, the most trumpish of republican places. in the end, republican voters of third district were there with him. here's the interesting thing about amash, he has been in the house since 2010 and has a reputation for going out on his own a lot, and in the process

many times upsetting influential forces. take you through what we mean by this. in 2011 was a freshman, started the freedom caucus, tea party republican, went against republican leadership. remember this, that debt ceiling showdown, he went against republican leadership on that. he said to keep fighting on that. democrats thought hey, you know what, this is a tea party republican that's set himself apart as even more conservative than most house freshmen democrats. maybe paint him as too extreme, knock him out in 2012. democrats went after him in 2012, but amash beat a well funded challenger by nine points. amash got back to d.c. for a second term, then it was the republican establishment that went after him. john boehner, republican leaders booted him from committee assignment and the republican establishment recruited a candidate to run against amash in the 2014 republican primary in that district. and again, amash emerging

victorious, he won that one by 14 points. now a different kind of challenge foray mas amash. a challenger emerging in the wake of calls on impeachment, saying i'm going after amash in the republican primary next year. it is a different kind of challenge. he is going out on a limb before, stared down the democrats, stared down the republican establishment. now he is going to have to stare down the pro-trump wing of the republican party if he is going to win re-election in this district. few rumeors he may have interes in the libertarian nomination. but his posture has that chatter going. the president hits the trail, sharpens attacks on joe biden up next. s attacks on joe biden up next. they're america's biopharmaceutical researchers. pursuing life-changing cures in a country that fosters innovation here, they find breakthroughs... like a way to fight cancer by arming a patient's own t-cells...

because it's not just about the next breakthrough... it's all the ones after that. what is that? uh mine, why? it's just that it's... lavender. yes it is, it's for men but i like the smell of it laughs ♪ you might or joints.hing for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. with peak season berries, uniqcreamy avocado. and a dressing fit for a goddess. come taste what a salad should be. and with panera catering, there's more to go around. panera. food as it should be.

(gasp) (singsong) budget meeting! sweet. if you compare last quarter to this quarter... various: mmm. it's no wonder everything seems a little better with the creamy taste of philly, made with fresh milk and real cream. it's not small. but it's not just big either. it's the kind of big where you'll never have to ask, "should i scooch up?" it's big that looks at a sunroof and wonders why it can't just be most of the roof. it's big that's better because we built it that way. the spacious, 121 cubic feet of cargo space ford expedition.

welcome back. as the trump administration faces off against house democrats, the trump campaign is dealing with a potentially dire

situation of its own, even nearly a year and a half before election day. politico reports that the president is scrambling to reverse a rust belt slide. quote, the trump campaign recently completed a 17 state polling project that concluded the president trails joe biden in pennsylvania, wisconsin, and michigan according to two people briefed on results. at this hour, the president is scheduled to depart the white house on route to, you guessed it, pennsylvania for a campaign rally there tonight. this comes as he is sharpening his attacks on joe biden. it also comes after a recent poll showed biden leading trump by 11 points, head to head in pennsylvania. that's where biden held a major rally of his own this weekend. >> most important thing to accomplish is defeat donald trump. so you want to know what the first and most important plant in my climate change proposal is, beat trump. beat trump.

beat trump. zbll nbc news national political reporter mike memole joins me. politico reports the trump campaign assesses they're in some trouble in those three states. the biden campaign, these must be the stories that they crave seeing because it makes joe biden look like he is the most electable alternative. >> that's right, steve. in this conversation about how the trump campaign is going to be viewing the race, how the president is specifically going to be talking and tweeting about the race, there's always been a question of is he going to be impulsive or strategic, is he going to be strategic by elevating an opponent he thinks might be somebody he is easier to face off against in the general election or is he going to be impulsive, reflecting that concern he has. everything we have seen so far is largely that it is in fact

impulsive. the biden campaign loves it. every time we see the attacks the president and allies launch against him, it fast forwards this straight to the general election. the thing we hear at events, the president is hitting early states, they believe he is the one that can beat donald trump. the longer they telegraph that strategy on the trump campaign side, the more confident the biden campaign feels about their ability to navigate what could be a tricky primary for him. >> we use the term potentially dire political situation for trump. i feel that's his constant political condition. that's what we talked about in the 2016 campaign. one of the questions is is it any worse for him than it was in the days and weeks and months leading up to 2016? do you think things have fundamentally changed on the ground in any of those states or is it the same dynamic of the 2016 campaign. >> he has been the president two-and-a-half years, there's two-and-a-half years of evidence on the ground in these places.

the fact he is not doing well in these places is not a surprise. there's two years now of evidence, whether on his trade policies or any other one of the issues that causes people to turn away from him. but there's a reason democrats are focusing on the states. i was at the rally with joe biden over the weekend, there's a reason he kept saying we have to defeat trump. i'm the one to defeat trump. he knows the message is let's get rid of this guy, in these states there's a receptiveness to that. there's a reason joe biden was in philadelphia. in major metro areas, they're trying to be sure that democrats turn out. after two years of learning some lessons, we keep seeing democrats pop up in pennsylvania and michigan and wisconsin. that's not a mistake. >> the interesting thing, the question i should say when it comes to biden and trump, you put biden up 11 points in the poll, you see that favorable,

unfavorable number. you poll that, he looks healthy relative to what you saw with hillary clinton. it seems like the question is can trump succeed in a campaign against biden of lowering his numbers, biden's numbers, favorable, unfavorable store to the same level he got hillary clinton's numbers down to? >> no. the reason is because hillary clinton had the unfortunate reality of 25 years of negative press, largely created by right wing media that was baggage for her even before she started her 2016 campaign. i think in the case of joe biden certainly he has his own baggage, right, in terms of the crime bill and other pieces of legislation he may have supported in the past that may have been popular but are now looked at in a different -- through a different lens. i think the challenge for democrats and joe biden specifically is to gabe's point. the reason why those three states went for donald trump in 2016 is because black people

either were suppressed from being able to cast ballots or stayed home, didn't vote. if people in philadelphia, milwaukee and detroit go and vote for democrats regardless of whether or not it is joe biden or anybody else, democrats will win that state. that's the math there. you know this better than anyone. i think joe biden's challenge in terms of the matchup between him and trump is to excite that exact base, it's not necessarily to worry about being lowered, although that's a possibility to encourage turnout. >> it seems, john, that's the shot trump has, unless we see a remarkable change in approval rating we haven't seen for two-and-a-half years, significantly under 50% two plus years as president. if that's the political situation, you need your opponent to be seen as less acceptable. seems like in the end with a critical number of voters, that was the decision trump got them to make in 2016. if he can't get biden down

there, zerlina is right. is there a path for trump? >> funny thing is, he should be doing better. we have historically low national unemployment rate. we have economic growth. if that persists and he remains in the 40s with not just biden but sanders or others beating him in theoretical head to heads, that suggests a weakness that's hard to fathom given the fact that he eeked out victories in the three states. i would say one other thing. he talks about rallying in pennsylvania and all of this. minnesota is sitting there, he lost minnesota by a point and a half, right? minnesota is a very politically weird state, seems to be one state in the country that's trending red. why isn't he rallying that he needs to have some cushion in

november 2016 where he is pushing on a democratic state that he can conceivably flip if they're going to flip one or another. >> trump folks say rural maine, new hampshire, minnesota, democrats come back with arizona, georgia, north carolina, texas. gabe? >> there are a few things here. one of the things we should note, the person that loves this conversation that we're having more than anyone else is joe biden because we haven't mentioned he is not the nominee. what he wants more than anything else to be in this one on one contrast with trump. the other thing we often do is forget the 2018 midterms happened. democrats swept by enormous margins in these three states. they're all doing well economically and have democratic governors and senators, all democratic senators now, that says a lot about where the minds of voters are. they turcned out in suburban an other areas.

the fact trump is going to these places, they long thought pennsylvania would be the state for him, it has been the state that looms large, more than florida, minnesota, wisconsin. it holds a special place for him psychologically. that's why he keeps going back. >> 20 electoral votes, any calculation gets trump reelected, they have to be there. thank you all. ahead, another big story. the president talking tough on iran. could threats lead to war. general barry mccaffrey on risks coming up. y mccareffy on risks coming up. with advil, you'll ask...

what sore muscles? what pounding head? advil is... relief that's fast. strength that lasts. you'll ask... what pain? with advil. when it comes to type 2 diabetes, are you thinking about your heart? well, i'm managing my a1c, so i should be all set. actually, you're still at risk for a fatal heart attack or stroke. that's where jardiance comes in. it reduces the risk of dying from a cardiovascular event for adults who have type 2 diabetes and known heart diseas.

that's why the american diabetes association recommends the active ingredient in jardiance. and it lowers a1c? with diet and exercise. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast or urinary tract infections, and sudden kidney problems. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. a rare, but life-threatening, bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. so, what do you think? now i feel i can do more to go beyond lowering a1c. ask your doctor about jardiance today. eh, not enough fiber... chocolate would be good... snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. glucerna. everyday progress

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

welcome back. president trump insists he does not want war with iran, but he did turn heads yesterday when he tweeted this, quote, if iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of iran. never threaten the united states again. today iran's foreign minister responded tweeting this, quote, economic terrorism and genocidal taunts won't end iran. try respect. it works. the rhetoric is clearly escalating here, but is this just saber rattling, or is it possible this could lead to military conflict? more on that when we come back with "the lid." th "the lid. ♪ i was just finishing a ride. i felt this awful pain in my chest. i had a pe blood clot in my lung. i was scared. i had a dvt blood clot. having one really puts you in danger of having another. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®.

to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner that's proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can... ...to help protect yourself from another dvt or pe. ask your doctor about xarelto®. to learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto.com. how janssen can help, introducing miracle-gro's next big thing: performance organics. this new organic collection of soil and plant food is what you've always wanted.

no compromise. twice the results. guaranteed. miracle-gro performance organics.

the latest inisn't just a store.ty it's a save more with a new kind of wireless network store. it's a look what your wifi can do now store. a get your questions answered by awesome experts store. it's a now there's one store that connects your life like never before store. the xfinity store is here. and it's simple, easy, awesome.

welcome back. time now for "the lid." with me is barry mccaffrey, a former gulf war division commander and former national security councilmember. general, let me ask you in terms of what you think the president is trying to achieve strategically here with iran we put the tweet up a minute ago threatening if he says provoked he could bring about the end of iran and, hey, iran, call me and hinted in public he wants folks in tehran looking at him and potentially being confused about what he's after. do you see a strategy at work here? >> well, he certainly confused everybody including our allies.

look, at the end of the day these public exchanges of threats of war raise the level of risk. it's nonsense. nobody would benefit from a general war in the persian gulf. what he ought to be trying to achieve is deny iran the chance to make nuclear weapons, to constrain terrorism sponsored by iran throughout the middle east and then finally keep the oil flowing out of the persian gulf. what's our strategy? so far it's not revealed. some deterrence is happening. that's good. but we genuinely do not want a shooting war with iran in the middle east. >> i've noticed some of the comments from folks in the senate who will engaged most on this issue that have given a conflicting impression about what's going on here. what i mean you have angus king, an independent from maine, caucuses with the democrats. he's reviewed some of this intelligence. he looks at the actions by the trump administration to declare the revolutionary guard as a

terrorist organization. actions on sanctions. he says the questions it raises to him is who is provoking whom? then you have lindsey graham, republican, saying -- put this up on the screen here. he says the fault lies with the iranians, not the united states or any other nation. if the iranian threats against american personnel and interests with activated we must deliver an overwhelming military response. do you see a clear answer on who is provoking whom? >> no. i think to my surprise the economic sanctions have made a huge impact on them. they're suffocating. the population is turning against the theological dictatorship. they have to do something to break out of the box. one would strike at us through proxies, and the other way is to restart the nuclear program. something is going to happen in the gulf. the economy in iran is plummeting. they can't get their oil out, so something has to give. the right solution is, let's talk to them. reward and punishment. the language in public, though,

has to be conciliatory not threatening. >> when we talk about the potential for some kind of armed conflict, some kind of military conflict, people sometimes go instinctively to the notion of all-out war. there's also the possibility that looms there of some kind of american engagement, military engagement with the iranian blacked militias, iranian bac d backed. what do you think that is? >> the chances of the iranians striking at us through a proxy are significant. that was the reason to deploy the lincoln carrier battle group to deploy more b-52s to try to deter that option. but i would be concerned that if shooting starts the upward pressures on escalation will be enormous. and if the u.s. air force and naval air have to go after the iranians, it's going to be a bloody issue. there's no question in my mind about that. >> we also had this report, too, that iran is increasing by

fourfold the rate of enrichment of uranium. what do you make of that? >> well, i always thought, to be blunt, the accord we had on the obama administration was a poor one. at the end of 15 years they would be a nuclear power. i think they're less than a year to break out now. they're going to move in that direction. they don't see an out because of the economic sanctions. the solution had better be start talking to the iranians, get some measure of control over their nuclear program and try and get them to dial back the level of terrorism in iraq, syria in particular, and lebanon. >> okay, general barry mccaffrey, thank you for taking a few minutes. >> good to be with you. before we go, we want to show you some new faces you'll be seeing soon and plentifully. this team of journalists will be following the candidates closely as we ramp up to election day.

congratulations to all of them. a special shoutout to gary, ben, all meet the press alums going out to cover the campaign firsthand. that is all for us tonight. we will be back tomorrow with more "meet the press daily" and "the beat with ari melber" starts now. >> enjoyed the congressman making a little news on your show, which we're going to touch on. always good to see you. senator and 2020 candidate kamala harris is here tonight. we're going to speak live about investigating trump, about her new plan to close the gender pay gap and why she says she's going to make wall street do a lot more if elected. also tonight, back for opening arguments. barack obama's former solicitor general argued over three dozen cases before the supreme court will tell you what you really need to know about the roe v. wade fight. he's been in the courtroom. he's the perfect person. we're excited to have him on the show. i