he did say it was going to be a crime family. >> rick wilson is the new author of "running against the devil, a plot to save america from themselves." thank you for watching. themselves." thank you for watching "deadline white house with nicolle wallace" begins right now. it's 4:00 in new york and the new normal is anything but. it's trump's former chief of staff, john kelly difying his loyalty oath with a stern rebuke over his treatment of colonel vindman. this is former justice department officials including chuck rosenberg sound the alarms. but a new report in "the washington post" best captures this moment in american history. quote, president trump is testing the rule of law one week after his acquittal in his senate impeachment trial.

seeking to bend the executive branch into an instrument for his personal and political vendetta against perceived enemies. and trump, simmering with rage, fixated on exacting revenge on those he feels betrayed him and insulated by a compliant republican party is increasingly willing to do so to the point of feeling untouchable . "the new york times" does a deep dive with loesds of new details about the fallout at doj after four career prosecutors quit the roger stone case after being undercut by doj leadership. quote, prosecutors across the u.s. who spoke anonymously said this week they had already been weary of working on any case that might catch mr. trump's attention. and that the stone episode only deepen their concern. they sol so said they were worried mr. barr might not

support them in politically charged cases. steve bannon adds this, quote, now he, the president, ntsdss how to use the full power of the presidency. the pearl clutchers better get used to it. on behalf of pearl clutchers everywhere, we will not. one of the bylines on the stunning report that we started with, robert kosta. nbc news correspondent, carol lee and frank frksz igliuzzo. andr andrew weiszman. andrew weiszman, i start with you. four prosecutors quitting a case is something that's been described as extraordinary. just take me through inground truth of what it's like there right now. >> so, just to get you a sense

of what they went through. so, imagine a defendant is facing sentence for having sold ten pounds of cocaine and the guidelines and the law and the facts are clear what you're supposed to do. that if it's ten pounds you get a certain guideline. and because the person is rich, white and knows the attorney general and the president of the united states, your boss comes in and says i'd like you to fudge the facts in the law. let's pretend it's a pound. that is the difference between the initial memo that went in by career prosecutors and the amended submission that was put in that led to four people resigning, which is that they were not going to fudge the facts or the law. >> so this sounds like an explanation more logical to people who live outside doj they

met the guidelines that he was convicted of. what they were asked to do was cheat, was to corrupt the process. >> absolutely. the guidelines are there so that everybody is treated the same, add least initially. the judge has to start with what are the guidelines, so that everyone whether it's you, me, no matter who we know in the justice department, in the white house, we're all, initially treated the same. and that's how you have to start. and you don't fudge in any way., the facts are the facts. eyes and pretend it's less. you can't pretend the law is anything other than what the la submitted by the prosecutors, they deal with the facts and the law and set it out straight. we understand once you set the guidelines, you have discretion

to decide whether it should be higher or lower. they point out ways in which the judge would want it go lower. i know the press has reported a lot on this. they say the prosecutors recommended initially a seven to nine-year sentence. that's not true. they say the guidelines initially would call for that. then they go out of their way to talk about the judge's discretion to go to other factors that would lead to a lower and what they didn't do was pretend that the law wasn't clear. when you look at the act of submission that went to him, he understands why i'm not it's not ten. >> but three of the prosecutors who work in the attorney's office in d.c., their boss is a political appointee who -- what did their boss do.

>> he didn't have the backs of his prosecutors. just to be clear, the most junior person is in the respective office. and one person up and quit. >> and that was a statement as described to me by a former doj official. >> i was trained early on by mary joe white who's a renowned figure in new york. has a senior position in brooklyn and manhattan. >> legendary. >> she trained in that there is no shame in resigning if there is something you're asked to do and you just cannot stomach it, there's no shame in saying you can't do it. what is happening outside these

four career prosecutors who were pushed to the point where they resigned? are other people peering over the edge? what is the state of tension and despair inside doj, if any? >> it's both within doj and people like me who spent careers at the department who are now outside. one, i think people are heartbroken. it's just like people are hearing about the state department, that people are emotionally very upset at seeing the rule of law gutted. there is tension though as to what do you do? do you really want department left without those people who are principaled. so there, is a debate about what is the right thing to do and i feel terrible for the people put in that situation because they didn't ask to be in that situation. they're victims just like the four prosecutors who had to take the steps that they did. i think there are a variety of ways to respond to it.

obviously, it's a huge statement and i understand people who say i can't take it and i'm leaving, but not everyone can do that. >> you give us some of the why to what we're talking about in a stunning, a remarkable piece of journalism in your paper with your by line today. take me through it. >> steve bannon in an interview you sited said the president now feels unbound. the impeachment process is over. he is fully supported by his party as he makes these moves regarding the department of justice. people like senator romney are rapping him about that decision but not ready to take decisive action. mcconnell not calling for hearings or investigations like house democrats orsont democrats. speaking to senator susan collins yesterday, it was clear she was not yet ready to call for hearings into any of this. so, the president adding on loyalists like hope hicks back to his staff, feels like he can

test the limits of not only the executive branch and power but the rule of law. and that's a development that is almost universally accepted within the administration and the republican party. >> what happens when an entire party from the top all the way down to the bottom -- and i put donald trump at the top and william barr representing the low, dirty underbelly of this operation by being the man shoving career prosecutors out the door. what happens when a whole party from the top to the bottom is corrupt on its rule of law and its belief in it? >> it means the guardrails are gone. it means the checks and balances that we would expect to be in place have been erased. and so the guy who's supposed to be standing for justice, supposed to be representing every american now in the role of attorney general can no longer be counted on at all. kudos to andrew for clearly

explaining the departure of the four prosecutors was not about a snit or debate about difference of opinion on a sentencing recommendation. it's about asking them to do something they simply could not and should not do. i see people on social media distraught and frustrated. we need more of this. this is an evolution for me. i've come from saying hang in there if you're at doj, if you're at the fbi, hang in there, be one of the good guys. i'm now saying that's not going to cut it anymore and you don't want to be associated with this complete demise of justice and democracy. you need quit by speaking out when you're asked to do something intolerable. we need more of this, not people hanging in and going down with the ship. >> carol lee, i want to ask you to pick up on a thread that our colleague, rachel maddow woev like the artist and sort of poet

that she is. i am not her. let me be more blunt. she took out sort of lessons learned from autocrats. and the bottom line was when someone tells you what they're going to do, believe them. and donald trump before he was inaugurated, compared the u.s. intelligence community to nazis. donald trump has waged a hot public war against doj and fbi leadership almost every day of his presidency. in a tweet yesterday he accused robert mueller of a crime. the crime of lying to congress. it happens to be the same crime that roger stone was convicted of, who he forced or pressured or influenced his own justice department to weigh in on to the point where four career prosecutors left. what do you think the next phase that robert costa and his colleagues write about will usher in, in terms of the national security agencies you know so well?

>> look, i think -- we don't know, frankly, where it can go. but in speaking to people who are supportive of president trump, there's a concern among them that the president is going to reach too far. what that looks like, we don't know. because it feels like every other week we see a different line crossed or something happen that we're all saying we can't believe this happened. but there's that camp around the president concerned that he feels so emboldened he's going to trip up and go too far. and then there are others who think this is the president that a lot of his supporters really like and wanted. and that they wanted somebody to come in with a wrecking ball at all of these institutions. and they like seeing this and that this is good for him. who wins out in terms of which is better for the president, we don't know, politically speaking. but one thing i think is interesting and andrew and frank

touched on this is this decision about career officials having -- facing this decision of whether you stay or go. you can do more good if you're inside than whatever statement you would make if you left. it's interesting the tentacles of that question of how far they've gone into the government because this is something, that from the beginning of the administration, people who worked closely with the administration have wrestled with. and now we're seeing it spread out into lower levels and deep into career, people who have worked for the government for years, career officials in ways perhaps we wouldn't have expected at the start of the administration. that's one thing i think when you ask where this goes next t could go further than that. i've spoken with people in the last few days who feel like there should be more resignations but are wrestling with the question and one that

people who work would president trump have wrestled with. >> i want to hit pause on what i think is an extraordinary pie p sun lite and blunt leads like this. president trump is testing the rule of law one week after his senate acquittal trial, seeking to bend the executive branch into an instrument for his personal and political vendetta against perceived enemies. richard nixon was impeached for less than that. and this is a statement of fact. i will bet my last dollar will there will not be a correction in tomorrow's newspaper because it is true. nex next sentence, fixated with rage, insulated by a compliant republican party. also true. "doing so to the point of feeling untouchable." this is the truth. the reporters who cover this

president and the white house laying out this white house and this presidency as it is in this moment in the boldest and starkest terms yet. and do you think that we have adjusted, as the rest of us in the media too, cover exactly what this is? >> it's great journalism. it's a trying time for journalism. i want to come back to a topic we've discussed for years now. is departure from norms that existed before. one of the norms before was the president of the united states would not corruptly interfere in an investigation of the justice department. and i know now i'm going to go up to 30,000 feet but there needs to be a mote around the justice department. the justice department -- >> who swims in it? if the attorney general -- whose -- >> that's what -- >> in doj. so, who's the mote protecting you from? >> a mote between the executive branch and the justice department.

the head of the fbi is appointed to a 10-year term, so that he can overlap two different administrations, so he's not a political appointee the way the attorney general is. should be the same as the attorney jrneral. it needs to be adapted, be a quasi-judicial government. the only thing protecting the united states from saying i want you to get that guy is a norm. it's not a law. and so, that's the problem we're seeing across the government -- >> it's not a norm. it's congress willing to impeach someone for abusing or vilaolatg a norm, right? >> that's a very hail mary remedy for something that happens every day. >> i think the "post" lead is that all these things have failed. bill barr and his glass jaw have

crumbled under the punch he's taken in the last 48 hours for creating a climate in which four career prosecutors quit a case, one leaves altogether and described by two form orficials is a rebuke of the department. he sat down with a great justice department reporter, abc's pierre thomas. a andiali and when asked if he was prepared for the kaungs kwenss of criticizing the president, his boss, barr said "of course." because his job is to run the justice department. has he ever criticized the president? >> i mean he can say that. to me, it's one of the issues. and to your comment of what can the media do? i think it's great to take these statements up in a way you have a lot of adjectives being used by the president and assertions being made by the attorney general.

it's really important to have journalists now saying let's look at the actual facts. the president gets away, a lot with describing people as corrupt and awful and they've done all sorts of terrible things. he's doing it with the jurors, the judge. it's now taking on the other branch of government that could be a check on him. and it's really are the facts tt actually support that. your question of are there any facts to support what the attorney general is saying? it would be nice to see some action that actually says that. >> so, this is rich. he complains about the president's tweets. so do his hard core supporters in eery, pa and says that his tweets make impossible to do his job. it's a really easy fix. lindsey graham can get bill barr on the show before a sunday show.

i'm sure they have a back phone to communicate in and simply ask him to quit tweeting. either he has no influence or he's compliant and wants to look like he isn't. >> look, i'm curious how the president responds to that. it feels to me like the kind of thing barr can get away with, given how pleased the president is with him. he did an interview with huh rauldo rivera where he said he wished he had barr in his first term as attorney general. but this is the first time we've seen a little bit of a brush back coming from barr and strikes me as more designed to be protective of his image publicly. like you said, he could always ask him to do that privately. >> have you ever heard anything coming out of any republican circles about any -- i've not

heard from anyone. i know bill barr doesn't like the press he gets and has asked people close to the president to defend him more robustly on television, which signals the complete saturation of bill barr to trump world. i've never, ever, ever heard a single whiff of bill barr not getting the president to be able to do anything. it's interesting he told a reporter he can't get him to quit tweeting. >> there have been efforts but sometimes the truth is in the open. you look at the picture of the president and his allies having dinner. house minority leader mccarthy and other members of congress having dinner at the trump hotel in washington all smiles as all of this unfolds with the department of justice. the phrase i keep coming back to from years ago is where is my roy cone? the president, from day one, has wanted these institutions to reflect his own will.

and as a report whoer who cover him for over a decade, you know he sat on the 26th floor of the trump tower, reflected his id, his desires, his wants. he comes into government without any other experience other than that. it's reflected his experience and how he manages institutions and people. >> is it your experience he found his roy cone in bill barr? >> it's not for me to say whether he's roy cone or not. i will say he's always testing those around him, including the attorney general. he always tests people to see how loyal are they? how far are they willing to go, to not only do his bidding, but to reflect him. and that's what's so interesting about the trump administration. so often the direction is not direct. it's a culture within an

administration where they feel they are following him, even if they're not getting directives from him. >> frank, figliuzzo, let me give you the last word and read more of the interview. barr defended his actions and said it had nothing to do with the president. nothing. said he was supportive of stone's convictions and still believed in jurys. i guess that's good. but thought the sentencing recommendations of seven to nine years was excessive. isn't that -- i mean, they didn't make it up. should we expect legislation to change the sentencing guidelines in this country? >> no, we can't because its to the fit the president's friends or enemies. so, you can't have legislation that says the following guidelines apply if you're a friend of trump and here's a separate guideline if you're an enemy. remember michael cohen when he was asked how do you know the

president wants something done a certain way? did he tell you verbally? and he says no, you just know after spending time with him, he gives you a head nod. so when he says i did this all by myself. nonsense. i'm not buying that. have a culture of eroding the rule of law and kowtowing foothis president. pompeo knows it, barr knows it >> you want to see the barr clip and react. let's watch. >> statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department and about judges before whom we have cases make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors and

the department that we're doing our work with integrity. >> mr. barr, the president does not like to be told what to do. he may not like what you're saying. are you prepared for those ramifications? >> of course. as i said during my conformation i came in to serve as attorney general. i am responsible for everything that happens in the department but the thing i have most responsibility for are the issues that are brought to me for decision. and i will make those decisions based on what i think is the right thing to do and i'm not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody and i said whether it's congress, newspaper, editorial boards or the president. i'm going to do what i think is right. and you know, i think the -- i cannot do my job at the department with a constant

background commentary. >> well, if i'm putting my journalist hat on, i would say he's concerned about his reputation. he's doing an interview not with fox news, bought mainstream media outlet. he's basically looking for sympathy. but to go back to your point about i want my roy cone. i mean, roy cone was a mob lawyer. only donald trump would say that because he's a mobster. that is the paradigm through which to look at everyone of his actions. i think we make a mistake when we start thinking he's a democratically-elected leader of a republic. yes, he is but his every instinct is that of a gangster and a mobster and what he wants from a lawyer is a shell and someone who will get around the law for him, not someone who will execute the law. that's why bill barr is in such an awkward position.

because he's the attorney general of the united states and the president of the united states wants him to violate the law, rather than execute the law. >> the only reason to do an interview like that and say those sorts of things is not because of the tweets, it's because of the four prosecutors that quit and made it look like you're corrupt. >> absolutely. the question, i'm sure, those four prosecutors are saying to themselves are where were you? you're saying this in a press conference? >> damage control, clean up. >> and you can imagine also. we're one week out from the sentencing of roger stone. that is going to be fascinating. you're not going to get a better judge than amy jackson. i mean, she is down the line, tough as nails and super fair. but as she has said previously this is one case in the united states where facts matter. and so you know, what barr needs

to worry about is you can say that on tv but she's going to want answers. and it's not going to pass mustered. she's going to want to know why did you submit that second submission and how is it faithful to the facts and the law? >> robert costa, we're losing you but you wrote a story today that blew my mind so completely i had to read it twice. after the break, the president's former chief of staff, john kelly, calls the's president request to investigate the bidens an illegal order and says colonel vindman did what he's been trained to do. and deep inside donald trump's head as a threat to his re-election. we'll show you the war of words that broke out today between the two possible general election contestants. all those stories still coming up.

♪ ♪ ♪

but right now the state department is in trouble. senior leaders lack policy vision, moral clarity and leadership skills. the policy process has been replaced by decisions emanating from the top with little discussion. vacancies at all levels go unfilled and officers are increasingly wondering whether it is safe to express concerns about policy, eve been hind closed doors. >> that was former ambassador marie yovanovitch speaking to a very, very welcoming crowd. she received about a two-minute sta standing in the room. those are her first public comments since the impeachment

phase. and she was give an prize honoring her long career as a diplomat. and colonel vindman was recognized by former trump chief of staff, john kelly speaking at an event in new jersey. kelly's remarks were reported. quote, vindman did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave. ", quote, he went and told his boss what he heard. when the president tell zelensky he wanted the biden family investigated, that was tount mount to an illegal order. we teach them don't follow an illegal order and if you are given one, you'll raise it to whoever has given it to you, this is an illegal order and

then report it. this is someone who maintains pretty solid relationships on capitol hill. i thought what might have happened if kelly had made calls -- i guess he spoke out about hearing from john bolton. it sounds like he thinks the order to investigate the bidens is an illegal one and seems like he's trying to support vindman and protect him from whatever revenge donald trump still seeks to meet out. is that how you read it? >> it's how i read it and it's also i hope it's not a day late and a dollar short. the time to speak out was when he was there, immediately after he left. i'm happy he's doing this but with regard to insiders in the government. we need more exs to speak out. we need the tillersons and the mattises and the boltons to speak out clearly. because they are witnesses. this is an indirect. they are there in the room.

they see these things play out. and what the president has been trying to do, and perhaps what has prompted general kelly to speak out, is he's essentially trying to tamper with those witnesses. we are seeing jury nullification at a presidential level. and so, i think it's getting under people's skin. and if kelly and tillerson and mattis and bolton and others will finally man up and speak out, we can actually start turning the tide. just as attorney general barr, as we discussed in the last block, is feeling the pressure of people exiting out the door. he's got to do something from a perspective. the dam could be breaking but not happening fast enough. >> the two kelly comments have had a lot of impact because of his reluctance to speak out. and i know you know more of these kinds of people than i do.

but more senior officials. when i worked in the government, they hated ever doing anything with the press. they didn't view that as part of their job. people like general hayden, other intel officials are speaking because the people in the agency they love cannot. you wonder if tillerson, mattis, bolton and kelly will form some coalition to defend the vindmans, the yovanovitches, the people who cannot. do you see a scenario where anything like that bursts into public view before the elections? >> i think if you separate all of them, you have bolton, who clearly wants to say a number oaf things. he's going to have a book out if he's able to get through the white house's process to publish his book. and there's a lot of things in there that were critical of the president. mattis has been really reluctant to speak out just like h.r. mcmaster, former national security advise rb.

with kelly, he's been tip toeing for months.on. said it sounded inappropriate what happened with ukraine. and here you see him really go there. and i wonder if, in part, that's because the military issue really resonates with kelly. and one of the things he talked about is he's talking about this at a time when the president is saying the military should look into some sort of discipline of colonel vindman for testifying before congress. that's likely something that doesn't sit well with john kelly, having served in the military as long as he did. and on top of that he clearly disagrees with the behavior of the president and he went all in. he criticized him on a number of issues from north korea to immigration, which is a little rich because we all remember that john kelly was considered more hard line on immigration than president trump when he was

in the white house by a number of people. but i'm not sure that we're going to see the mattis and the mcmasters come out and do the same sort of thing. tillerson, perhaps. he's criticized the president at different points in time. but for kelly, this is clearly a place he's been wanting to go for some time and he's gone there. let me play for you the president with geraldo. >> why are so many people allowed to listen to your phone calls anyway? >> that's what they've done over the years. when you call a foreign leader, they listen. i may end the practice entirely. i may end it entirely. sometimes you have 25 people. you have secretary of states, mike pompeo was on the call. he found the call to be perfect. with many people -- the only one, this guy ran and said he didn't like the call. first of all that's very insubordinate.

why -- he went to congress or schiff or somebody. but vindman was the guy that, when we took him out of the building, the building applauded. i don't know if you heard that. >> let me fact check that. what vindman did was went to his boss, bolton, who sent him to the counsel's office who's being investigated by his boss. maybe there's a person that can pull that off googel for you, trump. what was that? >> vindman went up the chain of command. that's what military guys do. going back to what i was saying about the paradigm of him as a mob boss. when you're the president of the united states and have people on a phone call with you, that's to protejt you. i want to have a bunch of people on the phone call when i'm talking to a foreign leader. >> it's to protect the country. you have the state darmtd to look out for diplomatic

equities, military if that's part of the agenda and the national security council there to protelkt the -- i mean we're so far from looking at him as a leader of our country. but it's there to protect the country. >> protect the country too, the presidency, all of us. it's only law violators, criminals who don't want to have anyone on the call. remember we're talking about cone saying the president never says this. he just winks and nods. he wants to have phone call wheres nobody is having a transcript, taking notes, because he doesn't want the country protected and he wants to be able to saz say the things he's saying without anyone knowing. >> he wants dirt on bloomberg. >> who was worried about whistle-blowers and cooperating witnesses if you've done nothing wrong. whistle-blowers and cooperating witnesses are not a bad thing. that is, by the way, how you make criminal cases. you want to bring down enron and

world con and get to the bottom of voelkswagen. the people worried about them tend to be criminals who call them, as the president has called people, rats. that is mob language. who's worried about a whistle-blower who takes the appropriate action of going through the appropriate chains if you haven't done anything wrong? so, to me, it's extremely telling. >> frank, last word. >> what i tuned into sharply on the geraldo comments was the fact people applauded when vindman was escorted out of the white house. first, i don't believe a word the president says. and second, if it's true they were applauding because he was departing, then that says everything i need to know about the total compromise of every staffer in that white house and i'm saddened by it. >> what a time to be alive.

thank you all for spending time with us. coming up, carnival, barking clown, a few of the words we can hear if trump and bloomberg. an hear if trump and bloomberg. do you have concerns about mild memory loss related to aging? prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

fidelity has zero commissions for online u.s. equity trades and etfs, plus zero minimums to open a brokerage account. with value like this, there are zero reasons to invest anywhere else. fidelity.

let me tell you something,ns to invest anywhere else. i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio and so much more. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you.

call today and find out more. i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust em, i think you can too. somebody said you know, that he's tall and he calls me little mike and the answer is. donald, where i come from, we measure your height from your

neck up. the president attacked me again on twitter. thank you very much, donald. he sees our poll numbers and i think it's fair to say he's scared because he knows i are have the recrbd and the resources to defeat him. >> a preview of what 2020 might sound like. whomever the democrats pick to represent them in november will likely have to go toe to toe with donald trump in a mudslinging match. and seems mike bloomberg has a head start in that department. quote mini mike is 5'4", a -- i'm not going to read any of this. blah, blah, blah, boxes. he hates crazy bernie, blah, blah, blah. here's the carnival barking part. let's read this. we know many of the same people in new york. behind your back they laugh at you and call you a carnival barking clown. this is bloomberg's attack back. we've been joined by two people

who can cut through all the muck and jim, paul mary. >> what if it's february and it's already exhausting? >> this is like post convention nasty. >> well, i think bloomberg is trying to show democrats how tough he can be. and a lot of democrats will find that kind of that's exactly what we need. we need to be just like him. trying to beat trump at his own game, i'm not sure. maybe that's the best way to deit. i'm not sure. but bloomberg's team has been super savvy. they got lucky with the iowa caucus being such a mess, biden doing so badly. but they're really making -- they're not waiting for super tuesday to enter the fray. they're taking advantage of a week before new hampshire when things are quiet. and i think it's really smart. and joe biden says south carolina is his firewall. but voters are not waiting for

south carolina to panic. they're panicking now. we have no idea if mike bloomberg has any ability to turn out voters. but he's ending up the advantage of biden's collapse more than buttigieg or klobuchar. >> i don't think you're going to see bloomberg outdo trump. i mean, that's bloomberg. i've known him as long as trump and i've fought with him and work would him. he is that shoot from the hip, i can be just as gutter roll as you can and i think that it is going to be that kind of match, if they ever end up being the ones that face each other. and i think the fact that he's not trying to do trump, that it's going to come across as him, works for him. i think he has other issues he's going to have to deal with.

but you're going to see a real contest in terms of who can come with the more offensive way of dealing with things. the thing i think she touched on, which is important. the other thing i think broke for bloomberg, inned a vartantly, is when we saw the same voter turnout in iowa that we saw in 2016, and we saw the increase in new hampshire but it was in a suburbs for klobuchar or for buttigieg. the surge that bernie promised has not surfaced. so, we don't know if we're going to have a real singular candidate going into super tuesday or not because bernie's talking about he has higher youth votes among his percentage. but that was not higher -- the turn out was not higher because of that. i think that we are really beginning to see, wait a minute. we don't know if bloomberg can get a vote but the votes we'

>> so, here's the new national poll and i was reminded yesterday about something i used tove day when i worked in politics. national polls mean nothing. but there you have it. sanders on top, followed by biden and bloomberg right there, buttigieg, warren and klobuchar in the bottom half. my anxiety for democrats is it does not work when you have somebody provocative or polarizing or slightly out of step with the majority of the party. in 2016, that was trump. and you split up the everyone else vote. unless you think the last three years have been a picnic, please don't do that. if you like bernie, you're happy, and sthats rr great. but now how long can the democrats sustain that? >> i think part of the truth of the rise of donald trump is that it was such a large primary and that you could get plurality

said with 30% of the vote and he kept doing that. but at the same time mike bloomberg made his money from data science and looked at the biinary there is this february month where they have iowa and new hampshire, these all white states, and they select a handful of delegates n. march they select 20 times as many delegates between super tuesday and the other primaries. why don't i go there? doesn't it make more sense to spend that? the reforical question people are asking, can he buy the election? no, but he can buy attention. that is what he is doing. and that's why he is going up in the polls. >> it does frustrate democrats because they feel like the first four states are the states where you prove that you are able to be a good candidate, you prove you are got at the retail, to skip all of that and use money -- >> why does it matter if you are good at the retail. >> because it means you are going to be a better president. >> i don't know about that. >> because this is -- it means

you can relate to people. >> campaigning and governing are completely different things. >> but it comes at a time when many democrats have questioned why we go to iowa and new hampshire in the first place. >> totally. >> i think that it doesn't hurt him as much because a lot of people are saying we shouldn't start there anyway. and the debacle that happened in iowa only furthered that. >> why doupt south carolina make the case it is more representative of the coalition? why aren't all democrats for south carolina going first? >> i think they should. i think it represents more of the demographics of the party, and i think that's the vote you are going to need in november. let's face it. >> frankly -- it is a zone republicans should fight for, too. we have to sneak in a break. but there is a big surprise endorsement everyone has been waiting for. the largest union in the next to vote state, nevada. we will tell you what they have decided. it is a surprise. when we come back. e decided. it is a surprise when we come back. well, did youo

was a bad motivational speaker? i look around this room and i see nothing but untapped potential. you have potential. you have-oh boy. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

it only takes a second for an everyday item to become dangerous. tide pods child-guard pack helps keep your laundry pacs in a safe place and your child safer.

align, press and unzip. tide pods. keep them up. keep them closed. keep them safe. transitions light under control. ♪ upbeat music transitions signature gen 8, available now in 4 new style colors. transitions.

okay. this is good. the democratic presidential field has been eagerly awaiting this endorsement. it is an endorsement from the powerful culinary union in nevada. caucuses there are in nine days. while we have been on the air they made their announcement. garrett make joins us from las vegas. i need a drum roll. the results, please? >> you are going to be disappointed when i open the envelope. the culinary union decided to endorse their own goals and values in 2020, not any of the

candidates of the candidates who are actually running here in nevada. >> what? >> there has been a lot of speck dags -- yeah, i know. there was speculation that culinary might throw a life line to joe biden. the key message here has been medicare for all. the culinary union is against it. they have a cadillac health plan they lobbied for. they have been sending out flyers saying let's keep what we fought for. buttegeig, klobuchar hoping it could be them. turns out culinary is going to sit this one out. good news for buttegeig and klobuchar. keeps one more tool out of the biden arsenal. >> another blow for biden and bernie. >> it is helpful to bernie that biden didn't get it. i think the tension here is that the culinary workers are -- there is high percentage of young hispanics who are culinary workers. that has been a great

demographic for bernie. some of the people are actually for him, the union leadership has concerns about health care. so it helps bernie that they are just saying hands off. people can go wherever they want. >> garrett haake thank you for jumping on in our final minutes. we will sneak in our last break. we'll be right back. be right ba. mr. peanut. he spent his life bringing people together. i know he'd be happy that we are all together now. (crying)

what is happening? [what is that?] (baby noises) is that a baby nut? (baby noises) (dolphin noises) just kidding, i'm back. where's my monocle? ♪ applebee's new irresist-a-bowls now starting at $7.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

no. uh uh, no way. ♪ come on. no. no. n... ni ni, no no! only discover has no annual fee on any card.

>> i could talk to these friends all day but we are out of time. that does it for our hour. thanks to you for watching "mtp daily" with chuck todd starts now. ♪ welcome to thursday. it is meet the press daily i'm chuck todd here in washington. we have a big show tonight. michael bloomberg's candidacy is grabbing headlines endorsements and afaction fromhe