tv Andrea Mitchell Reports MSNBC July 24, 2017 9:00am-10:00am PDT
his high powered defense attorney meeting with the senate intel community. as his father-in-law takes aim at the russia investigation, and his own attorney general. tweeting, why aren't the committees and investigators and of course our beleaguered a.c. looking into hillary's crimes instead of russian relations. and sanction snub, the republican controlled congress is ready to pass sanctions against russia, iran and north korea. the white house appears to be backing off from this fight. >> reporter: we support where the legislation is now, and we'll continue working with the house and senate to put those tough sanctions in place on russia. and kiss and make up, the new white house communications director now says he wasn't directing his grooming tips at his new press secretary, but at himself, see what you think.
>> the only thing i ask sarah, is sarah, i love the hair and makeup person that we had on friday, so i would like to continue to use the hair and makeup person. good day, i'm andrea mitchell and as we cover breaking news on capitol hill, white house official and trump's son-in-l son-in-law, jared kushner arriving at the white house 24
morning to answer questions about whether with the trump campaign had any ties to the russian hacking. kushner provided an 11-page statement describing his actions during the trump campaign and the transition. his bottom line he writes, i did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded with any foreign government. i had no improper contacts. i have not relied on russian
funds to finance my business activities in the private sector, i
have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my sf-86 form. above and beyond what is required. we expect to hear from kushner this hour when he returned to the white house. joining me now nbc news chief white house correspondent halle jackson. to hear from jared kushner is so unusual. for the president's son-in-law and top and closest advisor to the president, all the things under his wing, the middle east negotiations, not to say getting into the persian gulf issues. for him to be interviewed by the
senate intelligence committee behind closed doors and now when he comes out we expect to hear him speak. >> reporter: especially when you look at what happens tomorrow, when jared kushner goes back to the hill to talk to members of the house intelligence committee. there is a gaggle, a group of reporters and photographers that have gathered. this is traditionally where you might see mitch mcconnell and senate leadership make statements, they can come out, make a few remarks and head back inside the west wing. that is where we expect to hear from jared kushner when he returns to the hill and wraps up the meeting with the intelligence committee staffers. we are told that he will not take questions, but he will make a statement. remember that from a messaging
perspective, jared kushner has his own west wing officials who handle his communications. and they have sent out, early, early this morning, before the morning shows aired, what jared kushner was expected to tell, that 11-page statement that you showed us. noticeably more surrogates from the campaign, loyalists from 2016 out on cable television today working to pre-emptively defend jared kushner. let's talk about that 11-page printed statement that we have. number one, the issue of the secret, quote, unquote, back channel. kushner is denying that he ever asked for any secret back channel communications to be set up. but he is acknowledging that he did ask the russian ambassador in one of the four meetings that he had with russian officials or contact with moscow during the
campaign and transition, for any kind of existing communications so they could keep an open line regarding syria. that's interesting because president obama was still in office at the time as he had members of the transition coming in. the main statement he made, he did not collude with any foreign government and talking about that june 16 meeting being a waste of our time. that meeting being set up by donald trump jr., we have no information on when paul manafort will be interviewed by the senate judicialaew area -- jared kushner, and you're right, we don't often hear from him. i can think of the last time we heard from him and it was all over "nightly news," because we
had not heard from him. >> abbey lowe-he continuously amended his disclosure form that have to be signed on almost every page and saying that a draft was sent erroneously, a draft leaving off a lot of context and also his finances. >> right, and the excuse laid out in that 11-page letter, were those forms that were submitted in error was blamed on those staffers who were helping put that document together. this is something he is likely to be asked about. we know these interviews are fairly small, they're fairly tightly controlled affairs, maybe a half a dozen staffers,
maybe a few more than that, with cukushner and his attorneys, fo perhaps an hour, and we're past that time frame now. that statement this morning that they put out at 6:00 in the morning, and now with kushner going to the cameras as soon as they get back to the white house, those staffers are not going to come out and talk. and those staffers that are involved in the intelligence are not going to come out and dispute anything that jared kushner is says in his statement. of what he said in this meeting and how investigators took it will be the only side of the story that we're hearing, so he's got a moment here to try to defend himself. but already, andrea, i have heard from two democratic senators who say that's not good enough, they want him brought
back in an open setting, or even initially pieces of this transcript. now the investigators, the actual staffers on the senate intel committee may be les keen to do that because they don't want anyone else they may be interviewing down the line to know where they see the investigation going. so for the narrative sake, jared kushner is going to be able to set it. >> and they have also worked out very clear lines with bob mueller and his separate team, so they are being very careful about what they put out. the other big drama today, and this is sort of incredible. is the president tweelting today about his so-called beleaguered attorney general, who is beleaguering him? of course the president of the united states in his interview with the "new york times." and now there was an unexpected photo opportunity, the president was meeting with interns over in
the executive office building and i want to play it for you because there was a shouted question about jeff sessions and a lot is being placed on the interpretation by the pool of the facial expressions that the president gave. so let me at least play it for our viewers and we can all watch together and see what we make of this photo opportunity. >> will you ask jeff sessions to resign? >> well, howie, there was definitely an eye roll. should jeff sessions resign? i'm not going to be an interpreter of body language or facial expressions from the president. but there's certainly a drum beat against the attorney general. let me just tell you from my reporting up on the hill, with key members of the investigating committees, they are
increasingly concerned that this building pressure on jeff sessions is for the president is part of this effort to get more control of the investigation, because jeff sessions has recused himself. but if the president is able to appoint an acting attorney general, and it doesn't have to be rob rosenstein, the current deputy attorney general. so he will have a more compliant attorney general in bob mueller. hal halle, this is just extraordinary, the president undercutting his own attorney general, the chief legal officer of the nation. >> reporter: let me make a couple of points on the important points you're making here. number one, nobody forced, as far as we know, nobody forced
the president to send a tweet calling his attorney general beleaguered. and he said he would never have put him in that position if he had known that he would recuse himself from the investigation. the moment you just played, the eye roll is not the most significant thing. ive if you were to play out this video, you have people -- i would wonder if that's what the laughter from the students and the eye roll is, when you're posing for a picture and somebody is asking questions. i'm not going to try to assess the moment. but i would point out that that happened. that was the first question, shouted at the president today, was about his attorney general, that has been the question for
the president, ever since that "new york times" article came out that in essence confirmed the souring of the relationship with one of his main supporters. and the tweet is essentially the president calling on his own department of justice to investigated hiss former political opponent and that's what that tweet is. and that's really raised some eye brou brows here in washingt today. >> we're waiting for jared kushner, to finish up on capitol hill and come back to the white house and we'll carry it live when he speaks. meanwhile, we bring a key member of that senate intelligence economy, joe manchin, senator manchin, thank you for joining us, i know it was the staff not the senators. how do you see this evolving with jared kushner? did senators not want to be part of this meeting today? >> i don't think that's the case at all. but we know there's a protocol
that we go through and the staff is doing what they do. they have the initial meetings, they go through and kind of dissect and put together how this meeting will happen when, i hope, he comes before the committee. we'll have more information. >> let's just explain it to our viewers, do you expect that he would be returning and appearing before the committee either in public or private ". >> it will either be a public meeting or a closed meeting, that still needs to be negotiated. but after all the statements that are being put out that there's nothing to it. the public would be i think happy to see that and move forward, but the more things that are brought into the light of day makes people paranoid and skeptical about this and i'm just not going to partake in any type of a witch hunt, but i
think the public has a right to know the facts as we know them and if it's not endangering any of the assets we have with our intelligence community and how we secure or nation and keep it safe, if those things are in jeopardy, then we should have it as transparent as possible. >> can you confirm whether he was giving sworn testimony today? >> i cannot report on such an open forum, if testimony under oelt oath is what you mean. that doesn't give you a green light to do what you want. and people follow the procedure, i think they're going to be very forthright and very honest and if they can't speak, they'll say they won't speak. >> against the backdrop here, which is pretty extraordinary of the president tweeting against what he describes as his beleaguered attorney general, having told the "new york times" that he regrets appointing jeff
sessions because he thought it was disloyal of sessions to recuse himself, but under the guidelines, he has no choice but to recuse himself. >> i thought he should have recused himself. because there was an investigation with mike flynn and that's what he was being investigated for, mike flynn. so he did the right thing there. the only thing that i can say is that bob mueller, has in every aspect that i have spoken to or every person i have spoken to in the senate has confidence in bob mueller, he's above reproach and he'll do his job and we're all looking forward to seeing a final outcome. the president is saying there's nothing there, bob mueller will prove that there's nothing there, and if there is, we'll go on the facts that we have.
hopefully the public will see the outcome and be able to accept that. >> what were the actions took against mueller and those at -- >> when a person has that much confidence on both sides of the aisle, here at the capitol, and washington, d.c. and in congress, there's not that much you can get republicans and democrats to agree on just because they're the other side of the aisle. when you have bob mueller, and you have both republicans and democrats, he was asked to stay beyond his term because he was absolutely the professional's professional. and he's so revered and thought of here and i have heard nothing but accolades about him, i have
spoken to his attorneys, people that have worked with him or been in front of him for some reason or in his presence and nobody has anything but the highest praise for him and his approach to his job. and i think it would be a mistake if anybody moved on him, trying to move him out. because he's one person is that both sides still have complete confidence in. >> and there was a lot of talk about the president, at least raising the issues with these lawyers and anthony scaramucci confirming that he had talked really friday about this subject. and talked about not that it's just a serious thing, at this stage is a speculative thing as to how the legal options were, how would congress react democrats as wells republicans
to any kind of pre-emptive pardoning. >> we have always used a saying that talk is cheap. people can talk about anything, they can use their talk for the purpose of diverting, getting people to fire up, getting them to cohesively talk about things. it's concerning if that's the intent. if talk is just talk, again i would say talk is cheap. >> i would like to talk about the sanctions on the issue of russia and also iran and north korea, overwhelmingly approved by the senate, and over the weekend, a bicamera, bipartisan agreement and now there's some indication that the president might not object. it looks as though this will be a veto proof majority if he were to veto it, is it not?
>> all of the information, all of us who have access to russia's interference, putin's involvement, russia's involvement. it's unquestionable. there's no question, if you just sit down and have a discussion with the intelligence committee. and that's what you're seeing is bipartisan. because the facts are the facts. you're entitled to your opinions, you're just not entitled to your own facts. the facts are disputed here so i think it's favorable for the house to go ahead and act like the senate did, 97-2 on the sanctions that we should be coming down hard on russia, russia's involvement, russia's continued movement, russia's commitment and they're not backing off at all. >> do you understand why the president and scaanthony scarami
were talking last week? >> i would embrace the greatest -- they're out there every minute of every day protecting us, keeping us safe, i have been able to meet with quite a few of them. i am so impressed and i have nothing but praise for them and no reason to believe that what they're bringing forth, an intelligence that we're receiving is absolutely factual. and i would encourage everybody at the white house to take time to get to know these people and see the professional and the professionalism which they bring to the job and how well they have been able to protect the united states of america. let's give them support, let's make sure they're able to continue to do their job. >> the president's going to west virginia, your state later in the day, he's going to be making a pitch today also for health care, he's been kind of missing in action on the health care
push until recently. is this going to get to the floor? >> well, i'm here today in washington, i came very early this morning, been working all day. just finished up a meeting with susan collins. susan is my dear friend, she's someone that puts the country and her state of maine as i put my state of west virginia above democrats and republicans. we have got to work together. we've got to get stabilization in the market. we can't throw the baby out with the bath water. and maybe the baby just needs a little bit of a diaper change. and we can work and clean the baby up. we know it needs to be fixed and repaired, we both acknowledge that, we know there needs to be a process about how we dissect it and work with our republican colleagues, but repealing it is
not one, because we agree on too many things, we agree there shouldn't be caps on preexisting conditions, people with illnesses shouldn't be thrown off or be disallowed to buy insurance. you have too many poor people, especially opiate addiction and mental illness, we have never gotten that before. there's so many poor people that get hit so far. as people get older, the medicare retirement age, they're able to get with premiums five times higher than a younger person. these things don't make citizens in west virginia, in rural west virginia and west virginia in general. and main in general. they're going to vote on something. they're definitely going to vote on something. she was not certain of what that vote would be, and which bill is going to come before them, but she believes there will be a vote. >> does that mean that it will
get on the floor? >> that means they have to vote. >> they have to vote to get -- they need the 50 votes to get it to the senate floor. does susan collins believe they have those 50 votes? >> i'm not going to speak for susan on that. as of last week, they sure didn't. when you have lisa murkowski and others and then you had others that were very, very concerned about it. it looked like they were way short last week. you can see the argument, let's just proceed to get on the bill. if you recall, in the election that john kerry ran in, john kerry said, why were you for this piece of legislation and then you were against it? remember he said i was for it before i was against it? once you get on this bill, that means you're for the repeal. i don't think there's any mixing of the words or the intention.
if you get on that bill, that means you're voting to move that process down the road to repeal. and when you vote to repeal, andrea, it's going to be hard to put humpity dumpty back on the wall. >> jared kushner is coming out after more than two hours with the committee staff. he's walking out of the heart building now, and we're going to hear from him once he gets back to the white house. and we'll hear from jared kushner, with his version whether or not you and the committee team put out an alternative version remains to be seen. but that's jared kushner leaving after his two hours plus of testimony. thank you very much senator joe manchin. the status quo on health care is that the democrats are holding firm and so far as far as we
know, there are not enough republican votes to put it on the floor. >> let me just say, there's many democrats who we definitely understand it needs to be repaired, chuck schumer understands it needs to be fixed and repaired. you just don't repeal it and throw it out and say, okay, here you are, well, it's not here we are, here's what you just did. 180,000 west virginians, 20 million americans, and this goes on and on and on. we can fix it, we can definitely fix it. >> joining me now john palmerry, and josh ernest, former press secretary for president obama also a contributor. thank you both so much for being with us. josh ernest, as i -- first of all, jared kushner, we're going to hear from jared kushner, so that breaking news, two hours
plus with the investigators for the senate committee with the staff. we see him now getting into the car, he will motorcade back to the white house. when you've got secret service, you don't have to worry too much about traffic lights when you're in a hurry, and you can see the mo podium right there right outside the executive wing. we'll hear his version that he put out earlier an 11-page statement. so this is jared kushner denying that there was any collusion, saying that it was a staff error, that his original disclosure forms was not -- were not properly updated and that did not include some 100 context, but denying that he had any knowledge of what was going on at that meeting with the russian lawyer, saying he went in only late, you heard them talking about adoption and then
asked his assistant to call him and get him out of the meeting because it didn't seem to be relevant and thought it was not worth his time. josh first to you, would that frame the dialogue? because it was a closed meeting and we're not going to hear the other site. >> tactically they made a smart decision to put out publicly what he planned to tell the committee, or at least what he planned to tell his questions today. getting his side of the story out today was important. because we haven't heard anything except from leaks and forms that reveal a lack of seriousness, frankly about what kind of information he needed to provide to the government to get his security clearance. presenting what he was going to say to the public is a good idea tactically. but there are a lot of questions
about his lack of disclosure on a variety of meetings and conversations that he had. his suggestion that he didn't know what that meeting was going to be about when he attended that meeting with don jr. it just didn't pass the smell test. it's going to require more than one two-hour session sitting in front of that commission, to satisfy the curiosity and legitimate questions that have been raised about his kd. >> abbey lowell is a prominent washington criminal defense attorney. >> i have been cross-examined by abbey lowell. >> he's well advised in terms of a legal team. he's got scaramuccscaramucci, f
of -- for day one of scaramucci, there's a lot to distract from the fact that the president's son-in-law and top aid has been testifying, not testifying, but has been interviewed by a senate intelligence committee in a very unusual high-profile investigation. >> they're handling the tactics of today well, but as josh laid out, the fundamental facts are very troubling for them. and if you step back amongst the staff moves and the president's comments about the attorney general and about bob mueller, i think they're gearing up for a very big war, i think scaramucci ask the kind of person you bring in when you're going to face an epic battle. and i think the president is leading up to firing jeff sessions and continuing on a
path to firing bob mueller and that is all of these comments that he's making now are probably leading up to both of those two actions. that's when we're into a very serious constitutional crisis. so i have been the beneficiary of short-term good -- days that have good optics that give you some short-term benefit as they're happening today, but i think that there are some really bad storm clouds that are gat r gathering and republicans on the hill seem very concerned that they seem to be gearing in for a very big epic showdown over russia and potentially firing the attorney general and firing the man that's investigating trump once again on whether or not he colluded with russia. >> is there any other way, to jan's point, josh, to interpret the president's tweeting about releasing his attorney general, and there's even been speculation, on the sunday talk showings, agts of speculation by
experienced washington hands that those leaks by "the washington post" probably didn't start with the president, but the white house certainly could have piled on, on kislayak's secret code word intelligence intercepts. we're talking about highly classified intercepts of kislayak back to moscow, however he was characterizing those meetings, you can't determine whether that's accurate or not, but potentially very damaging about sessions, who gains from something damaging about sessions right now? donald trump. >> there is another brick in the backpack that jeff sessions is looking around the country as he tries to serve as attorney general. his credibility has been badly wounded, based on his in some cases nonfactual interests to try to be polite here, in answers questions about his interactions with russians and in some cases we gives vague
answers. the question is what conversations did the trump team have with russian officials. particularly as it relates to syria, you see russia starting to get the things that they have been asking for a long time, the united states backing away from the rebels that we previously supported, according to "the washington post" report. we see the united states working with russia to try to enforce a no fly, cease fire in syria. those are the things that only give the russians more leverage inside of syria, certainly what we have seen for a long time. and it doesn't comport with their statements that they want to get tough on russia.
>> i also wanted to ask you about divisions among democrats, even new york democrats, senator chuck schumer -- democrats are arguing amongst themselves. and he tweeted or excuse me he said, when you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don't blame other things, comey, russia, you blame yourself. you are obviously key part of that clinton campaign. your reaction to chuck schumer? >> reporter: yeah, obviously that was a mistake for him to say because what we're talking about now is what chuck schumer said about hillary clinton and not about his new message that he rolled out. and i think after he and hillary have been friends for a long time and after he saw the smog that she went through and the very difficult trial that that
campaign was to then make these comments about her when she's worked really hard to not just be back to the attack, but pursue the very agenda that senator schumer laid out in his op-ed yesterday. and hillary supporters are making sure they understand there's a reason this woman won the democratic primary with 60% of the vote and the popular vote as well. >> thank you very much, former white house communications director, former who is press secretary. day one for the new team of scaramucci and sanders at the white house, and they have got a lot on their plate. and at the white house, kristen welker, my colleague is waiting for jared kushner, and we know he's left the hill and has had time to get back, so presumably
he's working on his statement and how he wants to address what happened in senate intelligence. kristen? >> reporter: we anticipate we'll hear from jared kushner in just a few moments from now as you point out, he was on his way here from capitol hill. and so he will likely get his thoughts together before he comes and addresses the press, we hope to be able to ask him a number of questions, it's not clear whether he's actually going to answer questions or just deliver a statement. in any case, we anticipate that he will reiterate what he told the senate intelligence committee today, and that is of course according to his statement, he is going to say that he did not collude with russia and he gave more details about those meetings with russian officials which haven't been disclosed. two of those meetings, one of those was with ambassador
kislayak, he said it was so brief, he didn't even remember the ambassador's name. and then there's the meeting we have spent so much time talking about with don jr., in which they met with a russian lawyer u he said he went to the meeting not knowing what the subject of the meeting would be. that is hard for a lot of people to believe, that he would have a meeting in the heat of a campaign and not ask the subject matter. he said he went to the meeting and there wasn't very much information he could glean from it so he actually called one of hiss reside aides to get him out of there. so we have just been told that he's going to come out and make hiss statements at 1:15, not in the next few minutes. a lot of questions to drill down on when he hear from jared
kushner for the first time, really a remarkable day here at the white house. >> thanks so much for the update, we'll stay on this of course and bring jared kushner to you live, he's presumably talking to aides, advisors, lawyers, about how to frame what happened in the senate int intelligence committee meetings. [ male announcer ] eligible for medicare?
that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you.
with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. there's a range of plans to choose from, too, and they all travel with you anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. ♪ call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and there are virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait.
with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. you myour joints...thing for your heart... or your digestion... so why wouldn't you take something for the most important part of you... your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is now the number one selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember.
we have not had and continue to not have conversations with the president of the united states. >> i'm in the 0eoval office wit the president of the united states. he said he didn't need to be pardoned, there's no one around him that needs to be pardoned, he's just making a statement on the issue of being pardoned. >> president trump raised the question about pardoning himself and members of his family as the russian investigation intensifies. joining me now is attorney bob bauer, former white house counsel under president obama and nbc news legal analyst and host of "the new beat" appearing
for the first time today at 6:00 p.m. how would it be to have the president pre-emptively pardoning himself. >> it would be extraordinary where we hear that language more and more. pardons are for criminals. imagine it's a governor, you would think that governor is opening a kind of criminal confession and the founders talked about the potential prosecution of presidents in theory after they were removed from office. which of course presupposes they haven't pardoned themselves or it would be mute. >> and bob bauer. there's a newly revealed ken starr memo that foia saying that they concluded and his conservative republican, the white house water investigator and special counsel that the circumstances in this case, president clinton is subject to
indictment and criminal prosecution, although it may be the case that he could be impressed assuming he's convicted and prison is the appropriate office after he leaves office. a sitting president has never been indicted, is that correct? >> that's correct. the opinion to that effect was issued in 1973 and then a longer version in 2000, both concluding that the president could not be indicted while in office but the there's questions as to whether that's accurate and would have to be decided by the supreme court. >> how significant is it that the president is condemning his attorney general who's been a republican senator and a major
supporter throughout the campaign. >> it leaves the administration in a very weakened state to where firing on his attorney general. i know of no precedent for it whatsoever. it's not something that could have been anticipated and it's certainly not healthy for the administration of justice. >> the process for firing bob mueller is a complex one, especially with sessions recu d recused. but it might be easier if the president did want to take that very controversial step if sessions weren't there and if they were an acting attorney general and now yet confirmed yet an acting appointee. >> that's why it's hard to look at the president's statements about his dissatisfaction what the attorney general which -- it just means that the president may be going up to or over the line in what is supposed to be an independent and recused process. he does not have under the current rules, the president
doesn't have personal authority to fire mueller. and translate if he picks up the phone and says i'm firing you, the special counsel can say, this is a phone call that has no legal force and i'm not going anywhere. the only way he can removed is for cause by his proper overseer at the doj. and as you mentioned, the big question is all of this a pretext to fire the current a.g. to get another a.g. that might where more apply i can't believe. without following those rules it still could be an improper rule. there is supreme court precedent on that because they did rule that a prosecutor could be are reinstated even over the president's wishes if the underlying firing was improper. >> we'll hear a lot more about this and more. tuning in tonight every week
night at 6 eastern on "the beat" right here on msnbc. and coming up the nation's top intelligence officer saying that the united states may be headed to a confrontation with north korea. that's ahead. you're not taking that. you're not taking that. you're not taking that. mom, i'm taking the subaru. don't be late. even when we're not there to keep them safe, our subaru outback will be. (vo) love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. it's just a burst pipe, i co(laugh) it. no. with claim rateguard your rates won't go up just because of a claim. i totally could've - no! switching to allstate is worth it.
i own my own company. i had some severe fatigue, some funny rashes. finally, listening to my wife, went to a doctor. and i became diagnosed with hodgkin's lymphoma ...that diagnosis was tough. i had to put my trust in somebody. when i first met steve, we recommended chemotherapy, and then we did high dose therapy and then autologous stem cell transplant. unfortunately, he went on to have progressive disease i thought that he would be a good candidate for immune therapy. it's an intravenous medicine that is going to make his immune system evade the tumor. with chemotherapy, i felt rough, fatigue, nauseous. and with immune therapy we've had such a positive result. i'm back to working hard. i've honestly never felt this great. i believe the future of immunotherapy at ctca is very bright. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com appointments available now.
chances are, the last time yoyou got robbed.an, i know-- i got a loan 20 years ago, and i got robbed. that's why i started lendingtree-- the only place you can compare up to 5 real offers side by side, for free. it's like shopping for hotels online, but our average customer can save twenty thousand dollars. at lendingtree, you know you're getting the best deal. so take the power back and come to lendingtree.com, because at lendingtree when banks compete, you win.
>> when we look at the path of capability, they conducted 16 missile tests last year. two nuclear tests in 2016, and i think it's 75% more that kim jong-un has conducted than his father, his predecessor. so they're clearly on a path to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach the united states and match that with a nuclear weapon. so am i concerned? absolutely. do we need to deal with that? absolutely. what i can tell the american people today is what the north koreans are capable of today is a limited missile attack. and we are capable of defending against a limited missile attack for our forces in south korea, our south korean allies, japanese allies, forces in okinawa, guam, the american homeland and hawaii, to include hawaii. so we can deal with a limited attack. our concern is growth and capacity that has increased numbers of missiles over time, and the combination of an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear weapon is
obviously a concern. so do the american people need to be concerned long-term? yes. that's why this is probably at the top of everyone's in box and national security today, dealing with the north korea crisis. but we can protect the american people today of that, i am sure. >> what are the military options? >> sure. many people have talked about military options as with words like "unimaginable." and i would probably shift that slightly and say it would be horrific. and it would be a loss of life unlike any we have experienced in our lifetimes. and i mean anyone who has been alive since world war ii, has never seen the loss of life that could occur if there is a conflict on the korean peninsula. as i have told my counterparts, both friend and foe, it is not unimaginable to have military options to respond to north korean nuclear capability. what's unimaginable to me is allowing a capability that would allow a nuclear weapon to land in denver, colorado. that's unimaginable to me. so my job will be to develop military options to make sure
that doesn't happen. >> a dire warning, indeed. as we watch the white house, the podium, and shortly after 1:00, we'll be hearing from jared kushner. we'll be right back. thank you so much. thank you! so we're a go? yes! we got a yes! what does that mean for purchasing? purchase. let's do this. got it. book the flights! hai! si! si! ya! ya! ya! what does that mean for us? we can get stuff. what's it mean for shipping? ship the goods. you're a go! you got the green light. that means go! oh, yeah. start saying yes to your company's best ideas.
we're gonna hit our launch date! (scream) thank you! goodbye! let us help with money and know-how, so you can get business done. american express open. at where instead of payinging so ya befor middlemen,em.one. we work directly with family farms to deliver higher quality ingredients for less than you pay at the store. get $30 off at blueapron.com/cook
yeah, and i can watch thee bgame with directv now.? oh, sorry, most broadcast and sports channels aren't included. and you can only stream on two devices at once. this is fun, we're having fun. yeah, we are. no, you're not jimmy. don't let directv now limit your entertainment. xfinity gives you more to stream to more screens. >> did you answer all the questions, sir? >> yes, i have. >> that was jared kushner, leaving. he's now back at the white house. we expect to hear from him shortly. first we're going to hear from
nick confessore of the "new york times," msnbc contributor and peter baker of the "new york times." peter, first to you. the significance of jared kushner testifying. you don't get closer in the inner circle to president trump than jared kushner, his son-in-law. >> no, that's exactly right. this is a big week in that regard. not only is he testifying there's at least some negotiating still going on with his son, donald trump jr., his former campaign chairman, paul manafort, but you saw in that picture of jared kushner coming out of the office. it's an extraordinary moment. it's not a public hearing yet, but we're going to hear jared kushner speak to us in a few minutes from the white house. notice what you see in that -- in that driveway. you see a podium with a white house seal on it. you don't normally see that out in the driveway for people coming out to make a statement. they wanted to make a statement by putting that seal there. >> exactly. ni nick, the fact he put out an
11-page statement and embargoed for 6:00 a.m. to make sure it would be the last and first and most important headline on the "today" show and all of the other morning shows. >> yes, correct. his side of the story is baked into the news cycle today. if there are leaks out of the intel committees, it will happen later and be fragment airy. and his side of the story is something. this is a critical moment. we're seeing the moment where the different parties in the investigation, different subjects or objects of the investigation, their interests are diverging. if you look at his written statement very, very carefully it's clear he is putting the onus on don junior, saying it was donald's meeting, his idea, i didn't know what it was about, i tried to get out because it was boring. that is a real throwing under the bus moment there, i think. >> that puts the president in the situation of choosing between his son-in-law and eldest son, name sake. peter? >> that's exactly right. you can't imagine what the family dinners must be like right now. and this is the danger, of course, when a president brings family into, you know, his inner
circle. it's not the first president who has done it, but the first president who has put his son-in-law and daughter on the staff. and, you know, they become part of your operation, and they also become targets and objects of scrutiny if they have done things that are being questioned. so i think that it has to be a difficult moment for the family today. >> and peter, we -- this is not the last shoe to drop, because sean spicer is out, but clearly there's a bull's eye on reince priebus and, my good lord, the attorney general being criticized right, left and center from the president. >> yeah, the beleaguered attorney general. pretty unusual. he referred to him on twitter this morning as the beleaguered a.g. if he's beleaguered, it's in part because of the president himself, right? he said last night in an interview with us he regretted hiring him in the first place because he reaccused himself in this investigation. so it's a pretty unusual day. >> peter baker, thanks so much for your insight. you have been right in the middle of all of this.
nick con if he sorry. >> thank you very much, i am chris jansing in today for craig melvin live in washington, d.c. we are following that breaking news any moment now, jared kushner scheduled to give a statement from the white house after just exiting that closed-door meeting with investigators who are working for the senate intelligence committee. >> jared, how did the testimony go? are you confident? >> jared, how did it go? >> did you answer all of the questions, sir? >> yes, i have. >> answered as many questions as they had, he said. this is the first of two days of closed-door questioning for kushner. but clearly his strategy was to get out ahead of all of this. get his message out first. he puts out an 11-page statement early this morning in which the president's son-in-law denies collusion. he did acknowledge a fourth meeting