chuck, how are you? >> are you fired up, game five? nationals fever yet? >> no. i live in new york! don't yell at me. are the yankees still winning? >> can you imagine a corridor fight between new york and washington if that is our world series matchup? once again -- >> that's why everyone hates us. you say that -- >> the only way the country will root for washington. for anything, if it's facing new york. yes. good-bye. i better -- >> have a good show. >> you got it. thank you. if it's thursday, it's a bridge over troubled white house waters. tonight -- trying to calm the storm. >> the great four-star general john kelly. where is john kelly? stand up, john. >> in another week of chaos at the white house, chief of staff john kelly makes a public show of strength. >> i'm not quitting. i'm not getting fired, and i don't think i will fire anyone tomorrow. plus -- the fallout from the president's
escalating war on the press. >> i don't always agree and like what you guys write, but you have a right to do it. >> finally, president trump uses the power of the pen to rewrite the rules of health care. what does it mean for you? this is "mtp daily" and it starts right flou. now. good thursday evening, and welcome to "mtp daily." i'm chuck todd here in washington. a town we're just simply calling game five tonight. anyway, a hallmark of the trump white house is its cyclical movements around major developments. several times in this short administration's history where negative stories have cast a cloud of turmoil over the entire workings of the west wing. there was the removal of michael flynn, firing of james comey, the president's official comments after the charlottesville protest among others. it's often not just the story
itself that makes news that impacts the west wing but how the president himself reacts to the media firestorm of that story. and then that media firestorm is created a bigger media firestorm by the president's reaction. where am i getting to? the latest story driving the cycle in the white house is the nbc news reporting that secretary of state rex tillerson referred to the president as a moron in july. after the president reportedly suggested a huge increase in the country's nuclear stockpile. stories like this eat at the president. you can see his frustration in the way he reacted by lashing out at nbc news, by his tweets about the recovery in puerto rico and comments perhaps at senator bob corker and other critics in his own party. folks to break this cycle the white house needed to clear the air and did that today having a surprise guest at the briefing. chief of staff john kelly dropped by. and it appeared to be an attempt to calm tensions in the west wing and get the office back on track a bit. he started by calmly stating he wasn't resigning or being fired.
that in itself is a remarkable moment. >> although i read it all the time, pretty consistently, i'm not quitting today. [ laughter ] i don't believe and i just talked too the president. i don't think i'm being fired today. and -- i am not so frustrated in this job that i'm thinking of leaving. >> what's fascinating to watch him, kelly walked a tightrope on issues and able to give answers that appeared not to offend or feed the controversy, particularly for his audience of one talking about the president's frut trafrustration without throwing mitch mcconnell or bob corker under the bus. >> when members of congress say things that are unfair or critical, the president has a right to defend himself. when i -- when i read about
things that are what i would perceive to be unfair, critical, unnecessarily critical, i will call members of congress and just ask, you know, is there anything i can do to help you with that misconception you have. >> he explained what the president meant when he tweeted this morning we can't keep fema, the military and first responders in puerto rico forever. >> the minute you go anywhere as a first responder and this applies certainly in the military, you are trying very hard working very hard to work yourself out of a job. there will be a period in which we hope sooner than rather later to where the u.s. military and fema generally speaking can withdraw, because then the government and the people of puerto rico are recovering sufficiently to start the process of rebuilding. >> and on the iran deal, he didn't get out ahead of the president's expected announcement tomorrow. which is to decertify the iran deal. >> clearly, the president has,
he's deep in thought to say the least about a way ahead in iran, and once again, he's not the only one that thinks that maybe the deal that was struck under the previous administration is a deal that, in the long term, even in the medium and long term will protect america. >> and kelly responded to stories that say he's serving in his role at chief of staff to bring military discipline to the free-wheeling president. >> i was not sent in or was not brought to this job to control anything but the flow of information to our president, so that he can make the best decisions. i restrict no one, by the way from going in to see him, but when we go in to see him now rather than onesies and twosies we go in and help him collectively understand what -- what he needs to understand to make these vital decisions. >> kelly didn't solve all of the white house's problems today but he did take a whistling kettle
off the burner, as they say. we'll see if that is enough to completely cool it off. before i get to my first guest, breaking news at this hour on the las vegas shooting and investigation into the timeline. bring in justice correspondent pete williams. looks like we have a big new correction in the timeline. explain. >> reporter: this comes from million mgm resorts, owner of the mandalay hotel in the discrepancy between what the police said monday, that the indoor shooting when stephen paddock shot at the guard inside and a maintenance man at 9:59 and started shooting out of the window at 10:05, the question, why didn't the hotel report it sooner. mgm resorts says it was not 9:59 when he shot inside the hotel. that it was much later than that. they say that the shots were fired out the window at the same time as or within 40 seconds after the security guard in the
hotel jesus campos reported shots were fired over the radio. so the hotel now says that within less than a minute after the guard was shot, stephen paddock began firing out the window. so this make as big change, chuck, in our understanding. this sort of gets us back to where we were before. we had always thought that shooting inside at the security guard was either while or after the shooting was over. now we know it was just about the same time, but the mgm is strongly saying not six minutes earlier. the police are expected to have a news conference tomorrow and will undoubtedly be asked about this, chuck. >> all right. so now we're talk, what? a nine-minute differential? 10:08 they thought shots started into the crowd? >> six minute differential. 9:59, said on monday, 10:5 began shooting outside. now mgm says the shooting inside
and outside were at roughly the same time. >> now, explain to me this -- when did the rest of the authorities, when they showed up on the 32nd floor to confront stephen paddock, when did that happen? does this now mess with that timeline? i mean, is the whole timeline that we've been told -- >> reporter: shifted? >> shifted. >> reporter: no. not our understanding. because once he began firing out the window that launch add whole different sequence. fires out the window at 10:05. by 10: 12, policemen are in the building working their way up to the 32nd floor. get on the floor at 10:17 and 10:18 encounters the guard who shows them where the room was and by then shooting stopped by ar eight minutes. >> and is this correction influenced by the investigation? >> reporter: my assumption is that the police have been trying to give their best assessment of what they believed to be true,
and that it came from what the hotel describes as a manual, a report manually created. in other words, not derived from the computer system logging the times on the radio calls. by a report, manually created after the fact without the benefit of the information we now have. so, in other words, on monday, gish them the benefit of doubt. the police gave the best information they had. now based on this work that the mgm resorts has, there's more updated information. perhaps that's the best way to say it. >> okay. well, we'll, i guess what you're saying is, we'll trust but verify this moving along. >> reporter: precisely. >> thank you, mr. williams. appreciate it. back to our regularly scheduled focus here today. joining me now republican congressman ed royce of california, chairman of the house foreign affairs committee and i have a feeling will find himself with a busy day of reactions tomorrow. mr. chairman good to see you, sir. >> good to be with you, chuck. >> let me start way basic
question. what's your understanding what the president is doing tomorrow? >> i don't think we know yet what the decision will be. it's a technical decision, but when he makes it, i hope that he lays out the arguments, the case for the american people, and then also lays out the pathway for congress to work with the president in order to move forward. >> you have been quoted as essentially saying this -- as flawed as the deal is, i believe we must now enforce the hep out of it. right? your mind-set on the iran deal. >> that's correct. >> will that change tomorrow for you? no matter what the president says? >> that's my observation on this. because part of the focus that i've had on the committee and we had a hearing on this yesterday. we had legislation today. it's the wider, the wider challenge that we face, i was in the middle east in august.
iran has a series of actions that they're taking. now, this is outside of the deal, but it is destabilizing the entire region. it is a threat certainly to allies and friends that we have in the region, but ultimately their intercon nen missitinenta system is a threat to the united states. and let's address the situation and meantime europeans raised issue with us. they would like a longer time frame on the sunset. something we also have a problem with. we can discuss these types of issues, but move specifically legislation as we did today that addresses that icbm program with bipartisan support. we brought republicans and democrats together unanimous vote, 44 votes and the committee to move that particular
initiative forward, and i think that would accomplish the goal. >> it seems as if most of the president's national security advisers, and we know on the record secretary mattis, secretary tillerson, we believe national security adviser mcmaster and we know in front of congressional testimony the chairman of the joint chiefs, general dunford, all have advised the president to stay in this deal. explain the rationale -- explain the advice he's getting. give me your best case for staying in the deal, but fighting around the edges? because that's clearly the advice he's getting. nobody it selling him to do what he's doing tomorrow. >> i think to complicate it a little bit. >> thanks. >> i'm sorry. but part of the difficulty is the military bases. so what they're hearing is, yes, this is the deal, but we cannot -- we cannot convince the iaea, the independent inspectors
to go on these military bases even though we have some concerns about some of the evidence of what's going on there. so this -- this is why it's a technical decision, and the question then becomes, what should we do? obviously from my standpoint, we have the europeans cooperating with us at this point on the underlying deal, as flawed as it is, admittedly, but this -- this can bring us together with that pressure. we've lost the roughly $100 billion we had in leverage earlier, when that money was released to iran. so at this point, given the cards that we have, what shall we, can we do next, and because the international community shows a certain joint concern on these other issues that can be addressed with u.s. sanctions just directly on the
intercontinental ballistic missile program, i think that provides us an avenue to channel that pressure on the regime. >> sounds like you believe, if you want to increase pressure on iran go as far as the allies will come with us? don't try to go it alone? as you know, the president is not a big fan of multi-national agreements in general. whether trade pacts or nuclear deals. is that part of the problem here? is it you basically have two different philosophies of do we go it alone or try to stay multilateral here? >> well, we have found a way working with democrats and republicans to sort of bridge that. we would work with the international community on the agreement we've got, and then we would put specific financial sanctions, which are u.s.-enforced, anywhere in the world, this would be, second-party sanctions, that we're dealing with the icbm program. why? it's in the hands of the iranian
revolutionary guard and they're mass producing this. >> you don't believe that -- >> no. i'll tell you how i know. because before our committee we had former secretary of state john kerry who explained if it came to another issue, like support for terrorism, that was the example he gave, or support for a ballistic missile system which was a direct threat to the united states, that, of course, could be handled outside of the deal with separate legislation. that's what we have moved today and on the hezbollah legislation specifically addressing iran's support for that entity, we've moved legislation previously to the house floor. so we are putting together a strategic package here that deals with a full panoply of threats that iran is presenting to the region and to the united states. i think that's the way that we can really enter this debate with a plan at the end of the day to get cooperation out of
tehran and enough pressure on tehran. >> one thing is for sure, congressman royce. the ball's now in your court. the congress' court with what the president's got to do. there to cover it. hope you have you on again as things progress. thanks, sir. >> thanks, chuck. all right. general kelly. what do we think of what he did today at the press briefing? we'll be back with a panel in a moment. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪
anyone who calls it a hobby doesn't understand. we know that a person's passion is what drives them. [ clapping ] and that's why every memorial we create is a true reflection of the individual. only a dignity memorial professional can celebrate a life like no other. find out how at sanfranciscodignity.com. or a little internet machine? it makes you wonder: shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet.
you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com. welcome back. let bring in tonight's panel. kasie hunt, my colleague here at nbc, ant more importantly host of a new msnbc show. "kasie d.c." starts sunday. and robert trainor and former obama 2012 deputy campaign manager stephanie cutter. welcome all. kasie, welcome to cable. >> thank you, chuck. very much appreciate tshlgts a wonderful neighborhood. trust me. >> very happy to be here. >> happy to have you sunday evings and sunday primetime. how did john kelly play on the hill today?
no doubt an audience of one. there's number one, also an audience of 52 republican senators and 240 odd house members as well. >> yeah. i think they were at the very least a little bit reassured that he didn't go after any of them. he didn't try to, you know, cause tensions to flare further. he didn't make anything worse and i think he is somebody who, there is a high amount of confidence in. confidence in so much as, i think it's maybe more like hope. they crossed their fingers that every day john kelly is in the white house making a difference. i think bob corker gave voice to something a lot of people are not willing to say publicly on the hill but saying privately. he's one of just a couple men standing between the president an chaos. >> and stephanie, i was watching and thought, oh. this is a, the president's press conference to fix something. except it wasn't the president out there. like, i've seen obama. i remember, there would be those moments where he nerve wanted to
do it. only you can clean up this mess. you need to go clean up this mess. this was a moment where the president needed to clean up this mess of this week but they didn't want him out there and put john kelly. >> no way the president could have cleaned up that mess. he would have shoveled more -- >> made it worse. >> you know what? >> popped off on corker, popped off on nbc, popped on you, go around the room. >> criticize puerto rico. >> had a rough 48 hours. >> i think what john kelly did today is to show that there's an adult at home in the white house. and reassured people that there is somebody with some sense of things that it's not pure chaos. there is a decision-making process. we know that when these stories get written there's always a strong element of truth to them. so there is something going on in there, but i think what he did today is buy themselves some time that, that he's there. he's in charge, and he certainly knew how to handle that room. >> you know, robert, i was
wondering, though, if the president reads stories tomorrow and listens to commentary tomorrow more in line with what stephanie said. shows there's an adult in the white house. >> he's going to go ballistic. go ballistic. let me step back. what we saw a few moments ago with john kelly is someone that's calm, rational. seemed he should be the white house press snect many ways. did a very good job of the -- >> some promoting him much higher on the food chain than press secretary or even communications director. >> that will take a while. what general kelly did today was i think calmed a lot of nerves on capitol hill. also calmed a lot of nerves amongst a lot of people perhaps in washington, d.c. that there is a rational, someone who thinks through things, through deductive reasoning and i think what's probably going to happen tonight and tomorrow is the president will wake up, tweet and he's going to get very emotional, because i think the reality is that a lot of people are saying, he should be president. >> here's what's happening here,
kasie. feels like. we go through these moments. i picked out four big ones. ekg moments. that week, oh, my god. in an untenable situation that can't last. how is this going to end? then the rubber band stretches, stretches, stretches and then somebody thats back and there's weird relative calm here. at some point the rubber band's going to snap. >> i think that has been the way people have been thinking about this white house since the president was inaugurated. so far the rubber band is still holding. you know, i'm not sure exactly what gets us there. i think, you know, corker's comments calling the potential for world war iii as possibly as bad as it could get. what else besides the prospect of nuclear war that could people on edge? i was struck over the past due days of the idea steve bannon thinks president trump will not be in office in however many years. gives a 30% chance. i don't think anybody beyond capitol hill really buys that
right now. and i do think that they are -- one republican, senior republican called me, told me they consider themselves to the ballast in the shift of state and i think that mission is getting more and more critical but not sure they've proving they can step up into it. >> i have a feeling everybody's on the boat claiming the same thing. problem, constituents in another place. stick around. back with more "mtp daily" and the war on the first amendment in just 60 seconds. but right now, our bond is fraying. how do we get back to "us"? the y fills the gaps. and bridges our divides. donate to your local y today. because where there's a y, there's an us.
sometthat's when he needs the way ovicks vaporub.'s sleep. proven cough medicine. with 8 hours of vapors. so he can sleep. vicks vaporub. goodnight coughs. hey. what can you tell me about your new social security alerts? oh! we'll alert you if we find your social security number on any one of thousands of risky sites, so you'll be in the know. ooh. sushi. ugh. being in the know is a good thing. sign up online for free. discover social security alerts. welcome back. joining me democratic senator chris coons of delaware. a member of the foreign relations committee. senator good to see you, sir. >> great to be with you, chuck. >> let me start with the topic i think could consume a lot of your time tomorrow and in congress, and that is -- this iran deal. i know you met with the national security adviser. let me ask you this. can you explain what you think
the president is going to do tomorrow which is this sort of in between, not quite decertify the deal, but at the same time, trigger a new look at it? explain what your understanding is of what the president is going to do. >> well, chuck, what i think the president will be doing tomorrow is to send a message to congress that he can no longer certify that the jcpoa, the iran deal, is in the national security interests of the united states, but what she not going to do is to urge us to reapply sanctions on iran's nuclear program, or to take action directly to blow up the deal or withdraw from the deal himself. so he's signaling his intense dislike for the deal, but taking no concrete steps to undermine it or to leave it. i'm gravely concerned that this step will be misunderstood by our adversaries and our allies that it will distance us from our european partners in the iran agreement and that it will
lead to some mischief in congress as forces begin to pile on. so i appreciate the time you're dedicating to this and it's important it be carefully reported and that folks listen closely to what is and is not being done by the administration here. >> what's interesting is, the reason i'm glad i have you on is, you were a democratic lawmaker who was a skeptic of this deal. >> yes. >> it took a lot of con joeling to -- cajoling to get you onboard. are you and the president that far off? >> we really aren't. >> on your views of this deal? do you not like this deal, too? >> so what i like about the deal is that it has so far succeeded in restraining iran's race towards getting nuclear weapons. what i have always been skeptical about is the duration and the scope of the deal. so there may have been some -- >> which is apparently the president's -- >> right. that's the president's and some of his allies biggest concern.
>> that same issue. >> right. >> that at some point they get to build a nuke. we're just delaying the effort? >> that's not exactly right. >> no. but that's the perception. >> doesn't ever give them per in addition to build a nuclear weapon, but it has sunset provisions. it becomes less constraining over time. let me just try and simplify it. i strongly disagree with iran's ongoing ballistic missile program. its support for terrorism. its human rights record and so does virtually everyone in the congress. that's why the senate by a vote of 98-2 passed new sanctions powers to allow president trump to go after iran in those three areas. i think what we should be doing instead of having him decertify this deal is to have a strong bipartisan action by members of congress and the administration to work with our european allies, push back on iran's destabilizing actions in the reach aren and to begin negotiating the next deal, one
that could extent beyond the terms of the jcpoa and try to get iran to come to the table about their ballistic missile program and about their destabilizing support for terrorism in the region, and i think that's possible. >> let me ask you this -- what's realistic congress will do in the 60-day window? he is -- by doing what he's doing, he has to trigger this. what's realistic? what's going to happen here? >> yes. my hope is that no one will introduce a bill reimposing sanctions. >> somebody will. >> we'll all sort of hold our breath, look at each other and there will be no action taken. >> somebody's going to do that. isn't tom cotton going to do that? >> i'm exchanging notes with senator cotton and hopeful he won't do that. that we will try to find a way to work in concert to try and tackle iran's irresponsible actions, but many in congress will be tempted to take that
step if they don't see extending or negotiating additional protections against iran's ballistic missile program. >> let me ask you about you're chairman. you're chairman of the foreign relations committee. bob corker, republican, other side of the aisle, but foreign relations committee in general usually is a very collegial body compared to other committees. i know there's tighter personal relationships there. were you surprised senator corker went as ballistic back at the president as he did? >> well, i'll say this. i deeply respect chairman corker. he is my friend and my colleague. we've traveled together. we've legislated together. they is a conservative republican. we have different policy views, but he is a truly hard-working, smart, engaging capable senator and has served as a terrific chairman of our committee, and the president launched this attack on him, his character and his willingness to stand up and fight for re-election. i was struck at how appointed
chairman corker's response was. i don't think that it advances our national security. or our foreign policy interests to have the president of the united states and the chairman of any of our committees whether it's armed services or foreign reses or others, to be publicly going after each other in quite this way. so it's my hope that things will calm down a little bit, but frankly, chairman corker has publicly expressed concerns about the president that i've heard privately expressed by many senators. >> i was just going to say. he claims to speak for many republican senators. yet i guess -- do you hear the same thing? and at what point, if this is truly an issue that all of you are collectively worried about, aren't you obligated at all to go public? >> well, i'll tell thaw i share many of the expressed concerns that, there is a very capable, very seasoned foreign policy and national security team in place.
secretary mattis, secretary tillerson, general mc34569er. mcmaster, general kelly, have a firm grasp of the scene, international scene and allies and adversaries and i hope the president will rely on their advice. if the president were listening to publicly stated positions we wouldn't be having this conversation about this. the president and congress heard recently from the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs they think it's in our best interests. >> who in the administration thinks otherwise, to your understanding? it's our understanding the national security adviser, secretary of defense, secretary of state, have all expressed reservations about what the president is doing. who's advice is he taking on this? >> i think the president is choosing to act on his own political insights and values. i think he campaigned very hard against this deal. i think he views it from a very negative perspective and in my -- in my opinion, he easily
could have come in to the job of the presidency, listened to a number of classified briefings and come to the conclusion that iran is complying with the deal, and that the deal as it was negotiated does constrain their nuclear weapons program and does give us the opportunity to conduct inspections. he could then go on and say, but we need to do more. >> right. >> he doesn't have to blow up this deal this way, and i think the risks outweigh the benefits, and he's acting on his own advice to go ahead and to throw this hand grenade in the lap of congress. >> chris coons, thanks very much. >> thanks, chuck. still ahead -- it's the president versus the press -- again. we'll decode the president's latest attack on the first amendment. keep it right here. magic...is pretty amazing. it can transform a frog into a prince. but it can't transform your business. for that you need dell technologies. we are transforming jet engines into
still ahead, the president versus the press. >> it's frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. and people should look into it. >> as you know i have a running war with the media. they are among the most dishonest human beings on earth. >> fake news. a totally phony story. >> thank you very much. it was made up, made up by nbc. they just made it up. aturally b, causing a lack of sharpness, or even trouble with recall.
we're on a mission to show drip coffee drinkers, it's time to wake up to keurig. wakey! wakey! rise and shine! oh my gosh! how are you? well watch this. i pop that in there. press brew. that's it. so rich. i love it. that's why you should be a keurig man! full-bodied. are you sure you're describing the coffee and not me?
president trump isn't the first president to use anti-press rhetoric to try to squash bad news cycles. but this president has take didn't to another level. seemingly attacking the first amendment and freedom of the press, and did that just in the last 24 hours. in fact, last night tweeted network news is so distorted and fake licenses must be challenged and if appropriate revoked. folks, just for the record, nbc news doesn't have a license to be challenged or revoked. they license networks affiliate. and a compilation for the review laying out a new strategy. it's on the right of the political spectrum. don't get it confused with intellectualism. this is a strategy on the right by another group of people simply trying to dismantle the media landscape as we know it quoting, breitbart washington editor matt boyle speaking to a grew's college students in july.
"journalistic integrity is dead. there is no such thing anymore. everything is about weaponization of information." let's let that sink in. joining me now on-set. so in reading your piece, nothing made me both more upset and at the same time pleasantly surprised than the -- brutal honesty of matthew boyle. i am not there to be a journalist, tell you what journalism should be about which is facts. i'm here to tell you, to explain how to use journalism as a political tool. >> yeah. pretty remarkable. one of the things i tried to do with this piece, trace the roots. ever since barry goldwater, an essential element, movement in conservative and republican politics. the difference, up until
recently most conservatives and republicans at least maintain add pretense and some genuine there was a civic rationale. wanted to reform the mainstream media. >> more conservative voices or -- >> exactly. >> that's a different conversation. >> that is not what matt boyle and a lot of his colleagues, compatriots and the new media are talking about. they dropped the pretense saying, no. we don't want to make the mainstream media better. we want to get rid of the mainstream media and non-partisan journalism. >> that's the goal here, what i took away from this, reading your piece. this harkening back to the 19th century. >> yeah. >> the 19th century press was pruty ugly, disgusting and basically hardly usable. >> yeah. >> ask any historian. >> absolutely. this was the amazing thing. it's not just matt boyle. not just breitbart. i talk to conservatives who are at, some much more credible news --
>> and frequently we have on the show. >> a smart guy. operating in good faith. >> yes. >> he also praised the kind of journalistic journalism of the past. british press, back when by ideological movements rather than non-partisan news organizations. >> we're having an experiment what that looks like again. it's a very, a light way of, a metaphor, that the nfl moved to this. where teams hire their own journalists to report on them. >> yep. >> and ask the "washington post." you can't report on the washington redskins they give all exclusive to their own little bought reporter. what these guys are arguing for. isn't it? >> absolutely. and pretty up front about it. working towards an apocalypse of the journalism we've gotten used to since world war ii. >> it's interesting to me. matt boyle is basically out there admitting, not saying it
this way, don't look to breitbart at a news division. we're not. what we are is, we are a bulletin board for -- for a certain brand of politics. is that what they would, would they accept that description? >> hmm -- >> still claim they are a news -- >> may take issue a little but would say we do want to get rid of the independent non-partisan press. the journalistic institutions that exist now, and then once those are kind of laid to waste, we want to step in and fill the void for news, but only for a certain audience. they will openly admit we're never going to be trusted by vast lots of the country but will try to steer the political agenda as much as we can and in the direction that we want to. >> so who do they serve? do they, in their mind, are they serving -- a leader? a political movement? or are they trying to serve citizens? this doesn't look like an
attempt to serve citizens, looks like an attempt to only serve the lead propagandist. >> the thing that most frightens me about the direction we're heading in the media. that in this new landscape they're advocating for, i think the people who will ultimately inevitably benefit the most are the most powerful and most wealthy. the people who were create their own personal pradas and advance their own interests and that's, like you mentioned the nfl team. we'll see all kinds of institutions over the next 10, 15, 20 years building news organizations to cover themselves, and that's it. i worry about the implications in our politics and in our culture. >> it is and the thing that's most enlightening here, the sheer comfort they had of saying, we are not here to tell you the truth or give you facts. >> uh-huh. >> they don't put it that bluntly, but might at well. >> i think that's right. >> it was -- i won't call it a pleasant read but a very important read on cjr today. i encourage a lot of folks to do
it. >> thanks. up next, one thing i never want to see happen again, and i'm terrified it's about to. morning on the beach was so peaceful. until... it... wasn't. don't let type 2 diabetes get between you and your heart. because your risk of heart attack or stroke is up to four times greater. but there are steps you can take to lower your cardiovascular risk. talk to your health care provider today about diabetic heart disease. and find out more at heartoftype2.com. your heart and type 2 diabetes. make the connection. when food is good and clean and real, it's ok to crave. and with panera catering, there's more to go around. panera. food as it should be.
because she's listening this to audible.ughing and this woman is pretending her boss's terrible story is funny. experience the comedy, not your commute. dial star-star-audible on your smartphone to start listening today. welcome back. tonight i'm obsessed with the greatest burden a sports fan bears. the fear, terror, not of just losing but losing the same way again and again. tonight, the washington nationals play the deciding game five of the first round of the
mlb playoffs at home. that's the important part. at home. let's take a walk down a painful memory lane. 2012, the nationals take a two-run lead into the ninth inning against the eventual champion st. louis cardinals. they had been up 6-0 and gave up four runs in the ninth to lose at home. by the way, it was a jason worth homer that got them to the game five. one out, 2016, one stirnging out away from a win in game two. nationals cleverly decide to change pitchers. three pitchers later, game tied. nationals lose in 18 innings, at home. and you know what happens then. 2016, nationals 1-0 lead in deciding game five of the los angeles dodgers, give up four runs, lose 4-3 -- at home. what happens tonight? the nationals just beat the chicago cubs yesterday in a thriller forcing a deciding game five and you guessed it. tonight's game fwive is, at hom. i'll be there tonight with 44,000 of my closest friends
when you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, the unpredictability of a flare may weigh on your mind. thinking about what to avoid, where to go, and how to work around your uc. that's how i thought it had to be. but then i talked to my doctor about humira, and learned humira can help get and keep uc under control... when certain medications haven't worked well enough. 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.
raise your expectations and ask your gastroenterologist if humira may be right for you. with humira, control is possible. . the president has regularly engaged in disputes with various members, bob corker the most recent over the first amendment. that helpful to your agenda? >> it's what he does. we've kind of learned to live with it. we've had our engagements in the past, too. i don't think -- what i'm trying to get our members to do is focus on doing our jobs. we are here elected to represent our constituents, advance our principles, pass solutions and try not to get distracted. >> time for the panel. all right, casey, that was paul ryan doing his best. we have all had that exchange
with him. ask him about trump, and he says it is what it is. >> thread the needle. >> does it thread anymore? does the needle still take thread? >> or we are running out of needles. >> certainly running out of metaphors. >> no, look, i thought it was telling that he went as far as he did in saying, yeah, this is we are used to it. this is what happens. it was actually a little farther than he normally goes. he's normally pretty quick to deflect and move away from it. i think that he is wander go to a certain extent into no man's land here. he is in some ways alienating trump supporters, but on the other hand a lot of establishment members, bob corker has been willing to speak out publicly, made a decision, did it during the campaign spoke out harshly and felt burned. >> ryan, he pulled a corker, and it didn't work out so well. so he's like you know what.
>> let me ask you both a larger question here. goes to the, and i think about us in the mainstream media. i think there is a campaign being waged in the campaign and we are not aware of it. of course we are aware. but this doesn't mean the campaign is effective. what say you? >> i think it's effective with the right people. i don't think it's effective for the overwhelming majority of the american people. but trump isn't speaking to them. he's speaking to a very specific group of people. and it's clearly coordinated. they know what they are doing. and i agree that you are aware. i agree that no one in the media is being intimidated by it. which is a good thing. but i do think we need to fight harder back. ryan said we are here to stick to our principles. isn't one of those principles the belief in the constitution? >> this is a talking point. conservatives always pushed back on mainstream media.
and we have always had fox news. it's different from the white house and podium when we have someone that is it really attacking one of our core institutions saying fake news. >> it's in expiring this whole new industrial complex. >> big time. i'm sorry. >> no, one of the things that i think is interesting here, there was a recent poll that came out that showed trust in the media actually increasing for the first time in a relatively long time. >> best thing to happen to us is attack us. >> exactly. i'll say paul ryan in an earlier news conference did say in response refused to attack the president. but he said i'm a constitutional conservative. someone that believes in the first amendment. i don't like what you all, pointing to us in the audience write, but i think that's important. i think the challenge is still making sure people on both sides of the political spectrum who do believe in facts. >> that does feel like we are splitting into two categories here, especially if you look at conservative media. folks that just simply, hey, we
have a conservative prism on policy initial titives but beli in facts. >> this is the booby trap land that we can agree there is a problem but disagree how to solve it. now we are going down a dangerous path where we can't agree there is a problcommon pr. and that is how we face when we have the president of the united states calling it untrue. >> he's advocating not journalism, advocate. >> so i think we have to do a better job at making that clear to people. these aren't facts. >> keep doing what we are doing. >> it's a dangerous slope that we are on. >> we are. and the slope has now slipped off and running out of time. we'll search for more metaphors.
by the way, don't miss the preen ear of kasie. after the break, jon kelley meets the press. i didn't know where i was from ethnically. so we sent that sample off to ancestry. my ancestry dna results are that i am 26% nigerian. i am just trying to learn as much as i can about my culture. i put the gele on my head and i looked into the mirror and i was trying not to cry. because it's a hat, but it's like the most
you totanobody's hurt, new car. but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do? drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car replacement™, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. smart. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, we'll replace the full value of your car. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
>> right here. people in the front row the most important people? >> no. >> no, seriously, how do you end up there? >> we are the canon fire, first in line when you start shooting. >> how many questions can you ask? two questions. which one should i answer? >> both. >> by the way, extraordinary experience or in experience showed when he got goild by the last question. we'll be back more. starts a little late. good evening, my apologies. >> all good, chuck. what do they call it, ojt, on-the-job training when you step out onto the podium? >> there you go. thank you, chuck. will president trump sit for the investigator? that hypothetical may sound like a dream, but this story is breaking