tv Deadline White House MSNBC October 26, 2017 1:00pm-2:00pm PDT
inaugural address, most gop members didn't understand that he was talking about them. as the new normal that jeff flake warned about sets in today, the old normal is ceding to trumpism. "the new york times" writing that the vision for a more populist nationalist party sketched out by mr. bannon is being won as much through intimidation as through actual purges in republican primaries. what mr. bannon is trying to do, when what mr. flake's retirement could further is strike fear in the hearts of republicans who do not display enough enthusiasm for that nationalism that mr. trump ran on. at least one pocket, or maybe just a self-serving kernel of resistance was also reported today in this reporting from our friends at "the washington post." a superpac aligned with mr. mcconnell revealed plans to attack bannon personally as it works to protect gop incumbents. the effort reflects the growing concern of republican lawmakers
over the rise of anti-establishment forces and comes amid escalating frustration over president trump's conduct. which has prompted a handful of lawmakers to publicly criticize the president. the campaign will highlight bannon's hard-line populism and attempt to link him to white nationalism to discredit him and the candidates he supports. better late than never, i guess. let's get to our reporters and guests. ashley parker, white house reporter for "the washington post." and at the table, heidi przybilla for "usa today," philip bump for "the washington post," tad devine, democratic strategist and former senior adviser to bernie sanders campaign and old friend of mine from the campaign trails and david jolly. ashley parker, let me start with you and some of this great reporting in "the washington post" today about -- i'm not sure why this is a new effort or a new idea but it may be the last best idea to try to save some of these establishment
republicans from retiring. >> yeah, i mean, i think what you're seeing is mcconnell world is now sort of very aggressively and now publicly trying to do to steve bannon what he's been doing to mitch mcconnell which is we want to make this in some ways a referendum on steve bannon, you know, tie him to the white nationalist movement, dredge up some of the things that came out of his divorce. some claims of anti-semitism and saying the same way steve bannon is trying to say to republican candidates, mitch mcconnell will be an albatross around your neck. they want to say to some of the more fringe candidates, further right candidates, you'll be accountable for everything we have on steve bannon. and it just started, as you pointed out. it probably could have started awhile ago. and it's unclear how it will work. but you now have two sides basically coming from opposite ends of the exact same playbook.
>> is it a recognition that they can't take on trump and win because he's too popular with their voters? or is it an opportunity to take on someone and to really test the theory that trump's resilience doesn't transfer to trump's team? >> i think it's sort of more of the former. the bannon people pointed out, and they may be proven correct, that this stuff about steve bannon is already out there. the democrats tried to raise it. so it's unclear how successful it will be. but i think the key thing here is that among trump's base -- his approval numbers are not that high but among his base, he very well liked. very well supported. and the idea that these attacks on the president will work in some of these races, he's just so far proven impervious to these sorts of attacks. i think they'll be happy to take on the president if they thought it would be effective. someone like steve bannon who
has been portrayed on "saturday night live" as the angel of death has made it an easier target. if the republicans can't win a fight about racism, they probably deserve to lose. >> let me ask you about something bannon said to a biographer. populist national simp the winner of what we're doing now. it's on the right side of history. the only debate going forward will be, will it be bernie sanders' views of populism or donald trump's? >> i wish we had that debate last november because i know who would have won it, bernie sanders. >> you think bernie would have won in places that hillary didn't? >> like wisconsin? absolutely. i think -- >> erie county, pennsylvania. >> it's not a knock on hillary. hillary clinton had to go up against so much weight. people were looking for change in the last election. they asked those questions in the exit poll. what's the most important candidate quality? change. and trump won it overwhelmingly. bernie could have won that, too. as a result, would have won the
election. >> so we started here, so i'm going to have to ask you. joe biden is out with an interview in "instyle" and doesn't rule out running. is bernie running again? a bernie/biden smackdown? >> he believes if we're going to rebuild politics you do it from the grassroots up. that's what he's engaged in now. that's smart politics. >> has he maintained a constant line of communication with his base? >> he's been out there. our revolution is an organization he started. active in communities across america. he's traveled extensively 50 in the general election on the half of hillary clinton. i think he's an active presence throughout. >> david, is this the more sort of dire threat to trumpism, bernie sandersism, than any sort of effort at trying to repolish the old republican brand? >> i don't know. look, if joe biden runs, he would be the strongest
democratic candidate to beat somebody -- >> stronger than bernie sanders? >> i think so. how do you win the steel belt districts that donald trump took from hillary clinton? but let's recognize what just happened this week and with mitch mcconnell in particular and his comments. he's just drawing a line. he doesn't want to see a repeat of christine o'donnell and angle and aiken where they really could lose the senate. >> isn't that what's being set up? >> mitch mcconnell went on the white house lawn with donald trump saying he has my full support. >> let's stay here. let's watch that. here's the -- i don't know what to call it? a bromance with trump and mcconnell about what good friends they are. >> we just spent quite a bit of time inside with the senate majority leader who has been a friend of mine for a long time. long before my world of politics. early into his world of politics, i think. but we've been friends for a
long time. we are probably now, despite what we read, we're probably now, i think, at least as far as i'm concerned, closer than ever before. and the relationship is very good. >> i have a very good relationship, as you know, with steve bannon. steve's been a friend of mine for a long time. i like steve a lot. steve is doing what steve thinks is the right thing. some of the people that he may be looking at, i'm going to see if we talk him out of that because, frankly, they're great people. >> i love mitch mcconnell so much, and i love steve bannon, who has got like a bazooka aimed at all of mitch mcconnell's members. what was that? >> and what you saw mitch mcconnell's face was resignation. as much as those who concerned n critical of president trump this week found solace in what corker did and what flake did. the reality is they sounded more like concession speeches and not nomination speeches, and what we know for republicans, there is no pathway to win an election in
the gop primary if you are critical of this president. and it is forcing a lot of conservatives who are critical of this president to decide, are they going to fall in line or not? this may be the breaking point. as much as we'd like to say breaking point for those critical of trump. this may be where trump takes over the part and those who are critical have to decide, are they staying in or leaving? because what we have seen this week with lindsey graham backing donald trump, this renegotiation of their political conviction that goes against everything they've said this past week. >> these aren't policy differences. flake doesn't have profound policy differences with president trump. he has a -- he sees a fundamental obstacle to supporting a man whose character does not match the job he has. bob corker thinks he debases the office. we had an inflection point over policy, are we? >> 50 other senators stayed
quiet or says we stay with the president. paul ryan said we stand with the president. nobody cares what jeff flake says. it's a moral failure of the party and of paul ryan and mitch mcconnell. those who have fought for so hard for a year to say donald trump does not represent the republican party, eventually have to face the question whether they stay with the party or not. >> phil bump, i see it exactly the same way. and when someone sticks a poll in my face and shows me how popular donald trump is with his voters, i want to do bad things. i want to rip that -- but can you talk -- steve schmidt on this program yesterday said that a shrinking party is always more extreme than a wider party because it has fewer people to satisfy. so as it contracts, it in essence radicalizes itself. i'm trying to do this in fewer words than we gave steve schmidt. can you talk about this dynamic
of intensity not equalizing broadness. >> the first is that this is to the point being made. this is a longer term trend of the republican base rebelling against republican establishment. we saw it first erupt with the tea party movement in 2009, 2010. this is a continuation of that. what bannon is doing that's smart politically is he sort of seized that mantel as breitbart shaped the flow of that. bannon seized upon this thing that became trumpism and this is my tool by which i'll take out the republican establishment, even though he's never demonstrated he can take anyone out in politics. >> stop, stop, stop. it's a brilliant point. bannon has never won anything except the accidental victory of donald trump. >> that's right. >> his only victory he lost by 3 million votes. >> it's not nothing but kellyanne conway was the campaign manager. but bannon has never won. is it the trump base's belief in this populism?
is it their tolerance of white supremacy? why are flake and corker and all these guys running for the exit? >> fascinating result from a pew research study found that the nationalistic arm of the trump base, the people who are anti-immigration and think we shouldn't be global ift. >> these people are less supportive. and what those people are is, there certainly is this fervor, this anti-establishment fervor that manifests itself in all sorts of different ways but what happens is the support for trump overlaps heavily with the staunchest, most conservative arm of the republican party which everyone on capitol hill knows are the people that come out and vote more in the primaries. to the point about lindsey graham and so on and so forth, it's going to be fascinating what happens next may. absolutely we're in a position where people are pandering and making sure they are doing everything possible to keep those trump voting supporters out for the primary. but after the primaries are over, it's going to be fascinating that they've been pulled so far to the right and
have to win the general election. >> pandering is the right word. lindsey graham stood for things. he used to stand with john mccain proudly on matters of national security. he was for going into syria. he now stands and brags about donald trump's golf game in the wind and the rain. donald trump is a self-described isolationist on national security. it's precisely this. a lot of people who have parted ways or nonpracticing republicans, as i describe myself, are happy to see it happen. >> but you're also comparing the donald trump that was promised on the campaign trial with the donald trump presidency that has materialized, which are two very different things. when you look at the numbers, for example, jeff flake is not alone. many republicans have voted 91% of the time with donald trump because, as much as he has been out there with a bombast in the rhetoric, he does not know enough about policy to have steered us in a meaningfully populist direction when it comes to policy. we've seen obamacare repeal and
replace. we're now seeing a traditional form of republican tax cuts. all of the things he promised like infrastructure, meani meaningfully changing our trade policies have gone by the waughside. some of these ardent national populists are starting to become disaffected. all of the things that fed that feeling of displacement are the things that are now being pursued by this administration. wage stagnation. >> tax cuts. >> i'm an isolationist. let's have a military build-up and poke kim jong-un and possibly get involved in another war. i'm going to protect your social security. and yet they are going for a plan that would cut health care. >> let me bring ashley parker back in. i've admitted to being a rom-com fan. there's a scene in "jerry maguire." he stood on the floor and said, i will not be complicit and
everyone went back to their office. no one following him out the door, it looks like? >> it doesn't seem that way. watching that happen, it sort of reminded me of bob corker's words where he said, look. the white house is an adult day care center and everybody knows it. so there is this huge divide when you talk to lawmakers, when you talk to republican operatives of what people will tell you privately and what they'll say publicly. so i think there were a lot of people who privately watched and respected jeff flake's speech, liked it, felt he was giving voice to something they may personally feel but you're right. they sort of said, good for you, jeff. but we're sort of sticking here. >> and tad, this profoundly disappointing as it is to me, the u.s. senate is not a rom-com. they want to keep their jobs. they don't want to have to get retrained for real jobs. what do the democrats do in this moment?
do they cheer on jeff flake, or do they try to build a coalition or does bernie sanders try to meet him halfway on some of this economic populism? what do the democrats do? >> when your opponent is digging their own grave, you get out of the way. the worst possible thing democrats could do right now is politicize this, get in the middle of it. trump is looking for every opportunity to turn to politics and we should stay away from it. the democrats need to talk about the future. a future to believe in. that's what all those signs said. real economic policies. jobs. wages. health. infrastructure. how to really achieve it. all of these things, if we do it people will listen. >> i was going to point out to what heidi was saying. the base of donald trump's supporters and people who buy into the bannon spin/trumpism line of thinking, what motivates them is it is the way that donald trump handles himself. so there's a lot of -- >> they love it. >> jeff flake about the way he
behaves and so forth. they eat it up. >> i went out and interviewed three dozen of them. they like that he talks the way they do. all right. ashley parker, thank you for starting us off. sorry for the rom-com reference. the picture emerging from a new report on general kelly is not the one many of us projected on to the four-star general. "the new york times" reporting that he's a hard-liner just like his boss on many of the president's most controversial policies. also ahead -- social dysfunction. how did america's social media companies help operationalize foreign intervention in the 2016 election, and why aren't they being forced to do more to make sure it doesn't happen again. ♪ ♪
your bbut as you get older,ing. it naturally begins to change, causing a lack of sharpness, or even trouble with recall. thankfully, the breakthrough in prevagen helps your brain and actually improves memory. the secret is an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.
the last man standing with any moral authority in the entire trump administration, secretary of defense jim mattis. that's according to "new york times" columnist tom friedman who went on to say this. >> so we have a president who is still president of the united states but has no moral authority. i'd tell you sarah huckabee sanders has mow moral authority. that debate with kelly, he blew up his moral authority. she took out his uniform and said, no, but he has this formal authority. a lot of people says when you blow up your moral authority you cannot use a marine four-star
general's june form to clean up the president's mess. >> joining me is juan zarate. thanks for joining our merry gang here. let me start with you on this question of just how precious jim mattis is to the trump administration and the country. >> i think secretary mattis holds a great degree of moral authority. obviously, a career of service to the country, to the military. great credibility abroad. so you see that in all of his trips and everything he's doing. he also speaks with independence. what you've seen in his interactions within the administration and publicly is an independent voice. i think that's what's being reflected. nicolle, one thing to be careful about, though is the caricatures created around all of these administration officials. i think we like to categorize them, put them in teams. and it's often more complicated than that. and i think the criticisms of the administration take various
forms. both policy related, as well as tone and politically related. and so we just have to be careful about sort of these grand categorical statements about the last man standing. no doubt the secretary holds great moral authority. pompeo last week went out and parted ways with the intelligence community and the russia assessment. that's viewed as a ding on him. general kelly is being criticized across the political spect rum, including from some people you and i both knowis in administration for politicizing a moment that could have been and should have remained as sacred as he tried to make it when he talked about how a soldier's body comes home packed on ice but then attacked a democratic congresswoman. tillerson said this today in geneva and looked at a sculpture and talked about this. let's watch together. >> some days i feel like i need to do that, curl up in a ball.
>> so our secretary of state is curled up in a ball. our head of the cia is, at least dinged up on russia. our white house steve of staff general kelly is in the muddle of a political verbal argument with some of his own facts wrong with an african-american member of congress. and i could keep going. the point is that mattis is the only one who hasn't been tarnished during his service of donald trump. not a fair point? >> it's a fair point to a certain extent. i think pointing to certain comments or moment as a moment of moral downfall may be a little bit too much. and i think these are all men of character, people who have served their country. you know this, nicolle. i've said on your show, i'm very close with h.r. mcmaster and mike pompeo. they've served their country for years. to declare that one statement or
one misstep suddenly reflects tarnishment of their character and a loss of their leadership, i think is a little bit much. all that said, criticisms on policy are completely legitimate. questions as to whether or not decision-making is rational and right is fair game. and i think it is a good question to ask, where are we going on policy and what role are each of these key cabinet and national security figures playing? we've got to be careful about overplaying the caricature around the drama and political theater that we often talk about. >> juan makes a wise point but character is essential because the indictment from bob corker this week was of the president's character. the indictment on the floor of the senate by jeff flake was of the president's character. our head of state's character is being called into question by two men with nothing to lose. we have to assume that all they have left is the truth.
not to mention, john mccain who called all that we've been talking about trumpism, something that's going to end up on the ash heap of history and george w. bush who in the left week had a stinging indictment of what donald trump has ushered in. i want to put the same question to you. is it a fact that the association with donald trump tarnishes otherwise great men? i agree with juan that these are men with sterling reputations. but i wonder if their service of donald trump threatens that. >> i think it does. the proximity to trump is toxic. general kelly found that out last week. if he had stopped halfway through that press conference, people would have walked away and said, now we understand how this happened. trump completely mangled the whole thing, and it -- >> lost in translation. >> totally. instead kelly said he's going to step away from being that general, that leader and step into being like a political operative. i'll give him some advice as a
career political operative. if you're going after somebody, get your facts straight, okay? don't make it up if you're going to go head-hunting like that. >> so what happened last week, it exposed general kelly's ideology. he fumbled a moment that created essentially a pr disaster and rightfully so. he owns that moment. what i would suggest is we're safer as a country because the generals are there because mcmaster is there, kelly is there. and because mattis is there. what i mean by that is we have heard the president. we have seen his volatility. we've never heard this president talk about peace through strength. we've seen him -- >> do you think he'd understand the reference? >> i don't think he would. here's why we are safer. i believe these three generals, even if they've fallen to the president's ideology, know that if there's a moment of national security, they'll intervene. if not, they'll step away, and it will be a noisy withdrawal where the nation knows this president is not in a position to be commander in chief.
>> let me read you something, heidi, from peter baker's incredible reporting today in "the new york times" about just what you're talking about. peter baker writes, kelly, for all the talk of mr. kelly as a moderating force in the so-called grown-up in the room, it turns out he harbors strong feelings on proimpism, national security and immigration that mirror the hard-line views of his outs spoken boss. the whole piece is worth a read but this idea he was revealed as not only not being uncomfortable with some of the hardest line aspects of trumpism, but at least being willing to stake what i think juan zarate correctly describes as a sterling reputation in defense of this president. >> i do think it has a meaningful problem for this administration going forward. in that even if it wasn't a sign of his character, it is a sign of his credibility going forward and that on a tactical level, it was clear that the administration wanted to start to use john kelly more as a
public face for this administration. they have unusually -- actually, i went back and tried to look, when was the left time we had a chief of staff come out like this and hold press conferences so much. so the fact that he went so far as to say an anec doe eecdote w verifiably disproven with video evidence and then did not apologize for that tarnishes his credibility, regardless of whatever his hard-line views, however you classified that, may be. it's a problem for this administration that he -- we in the media thought, wow, this was a really good move to put him out there and be more of the public face of the administration. it's viewed as a blot on his record. >> juan, i want to give you the last word here and the question i want to ask you is if your friends h.r. mcmaster or director pompeo have called you and complained. i know you won't answer it truthfully. what advice would you give them? >> i always answer truthfully.
>> i assume those are your private conversations. you're welcome to share them. what advice would you give about how to preserve what a lot of people like you feel, these are men of, at least until this moment, sterling reputations. how do they preserve them while serving donald trump? >> i think you have to speak truth to power. and i think all the senior leaders around the president tried to do that. they give the information that the president needs to hear. they are truthful with their views. they don't mince words, and i think they have to continue to do that. they also have to serve the president. he's the commander in chief. so they have to figure out ways of channeling the ideas and the policies he has in mind and to channel them in ways that are productive. i would say, you know -- >> i have to stop you. i have to stop you. they have to speak truth to power. do you think any of them call him and say that tweet you just sent out totally bleeping bonkers. you're marching us to word, you idiot. do any of them say that? yes or no. >> it's a great question and
point. it goes to the article in "the new york times" which is, i think there's a distinction between the hard policy issues that they are deal with and the day-to-day kind of political nonsense and theater that the tweets represent. >> they're terrified about north korea. donald trump tweets about north korea. do they confront him about his tweets about other in korea? >> they certainly talk about the communication strategy. that's clear. the point here, nicolle, as you've looked at the policy roll-out on issues like iran, like afghanistan, the decision in syria to intervene more wider rules of engagement in syria and iraq to go after isis, all of those have been much more methodical. they've been tempered and leavened by the advice he's been given. and the president himself has said his own views have changed as a result. so i would just caution, there's a lot to criticize. you've heard me criticize. i'm not an apologist for the trump administration. but we've got to be careful about how we criticize around
the political theater and the drama versus the policy. and then we've got to draw our criticisms around the advisers nee neatly around that distinction. >> can i get you to neatly criticizing about fire and fury in north korea? >> i think there's a real risk escalating the rhetoric and the bragadocio where you have unintended consequences. there is value in a communication strategy that signals not just to the north koreans but to the chinese that we are more serious that this is an existential threat. not that we want war but that war is a real possible. ergo, the chinese have to do more. that is not a silly strategy. >> we'll have to agree to disagree on the rest of the tweets because we could goy to whole hour. i appreciate you being here. thank you juan zarate. sworn testimony. the big three social media companies will do something they try very, very, very hard not to do. we'll tell you what it is when
twitter taking an aggressive step in stopping russian interference on its site today, less than a week before it will join facebook and google on capitol hill to testify before house and senate intelligence committees in an open hearing. they often prefer to testify in closed sessions. ceo jack dorsey tweeting today, offboarding advertising from all accounts owned by russia today. rt and sputnik. we're donating all projected earnings, $1.9 million to support external research into the use of twitter in elections, including use of malicious automation and misinformation. rt fighting back saying it never violated any rules with its ads. releasing materials from when they met with twitter executives ahead of the election and said twitter's main pitch was to take a stand and spend money.
joining me is executive editor kara swisher. the straight talk express of silicon valley. what is all this? >> you know about that. >> you know, it's laudable that they did that. it's a little too late. >> are they giving the money to themselves to research themselves? >> well, you know, that's an important thing to do. interesting google just has been doing a lot of studies on fake news and everything. they all have started to do real research into what's happening which they should have known before, right? it's sort of the -- a little too late. i think it's good they're making this transparent. they're trying to do it ahead of regulation. it's going to require them and should require them to do this. you notice that none of these are barring content. the content which is just like ads. this rt stuff is just like ads. now free ads on twitter. and so these platforms, as i've said, for months now, like they are not benign platforms.
they're being used as tools for propaganda. >> not only are they not benign, but that they profited is just the extra crummy part of this. the crummy part is that the russians and automation, whatnot, are we talking about bots? >> some of them. some of them are very clearly targeted to certain populations. it's just taking advantage of the entire system and then these companies benefit financially from them at the same time. and, look, these ads were sold probably by -- i talked to someone at twitter who was there. probably sold by their d.c. office. might have been self-serve stuff. might have been self-serve ads. and they go through a chain of approval. any controversial ads go up and down the chain of getting in a queue, a policy queue for approval. why were they approved? how did that system work? are they -- i think at nbc, they have approvals for certain advertising. >> of course. we're heavily regulated. you can't put -- i know from being on the campaign side, your
ad doesn't ship and air until all your fact checks and legal records. is that the future for social media companies? are they heading into a point where they'll be regulated and held as accountable as a media company like nbc? >> on certain things y not? they like to argue they're different but it's communications in this modern era. should radio have been regulated different from television? they're different mediums, different ways to communicate but they all have the same result, which is broadcasting to millions and millions and in facebook's case, 2 billion people. >> do they know that? that this is what's coming? >> i think they're aware of it. >> when sheryl sandberg was with mike allen for axios so had a hard time saying i'm sorry. when you're facing a political crisis, it's a really, really good thing to say. can you explain to political types just the mentality of these companies and why it's so difficult -- why do they see themselves as more benevolent than they are? >> it's just exhausting for me. they always are like, how great they are for the world and this
and that. >> like donald trump. >> this is a group of very self-complimentary people. >> it could go very far in american politics. >> i love my iphone. i had a longtime relationship with a blackberry. i get how great this is. you don't see the carmakers wanting thanks and don't you love me for the cars they make. so i think that -- i'm sorry is not in their lexicon. oh, but this and that. i think because they think in mathematical terms, a lot of these people and they think, well, it's this. it's more complex. and so politics is so reductive and this really is a complicated issue. they want to talk about the complications and they'll learn the reductive language at some point. but today -- >> they'll learn it or program it -- >> you cover the intersection of technology and politics better than just about anybody. what are your thoughts as they head into open testimony next
week? >> well, i think one of the things to keep in mind is scale. and, obviously, we're all aware of the scale of facebook and it makes it much, much harder to do. nbc has 24 hours a day they can review the hours. twitter and facebook need to make a lot of money. >> i don't need to make a lot of money. they want to make a lot of money. >> they need to make some money. twitter needs to make money. i think though, and now i feel as though i'm going to be doing the nuanced, i work for a tech company angle to this, but it also is the case that it is tough to say why is it that they won't take an add from rt or sputnik but if some joe schmo wants to buy an ad that does the same thing, even though he's not getting money from the russian government, where is that line drawn? it's a complicated issue when you're talking about the scale of these technology companies. it's the case we saw before
election day garbage was being spread online. that's absolutely the case. but for 78,000 votes in wisconsin, michigan and pennsylvania, who knows if we'd even be talking about this. but that happened and here's where we are. it's not an easy solution. and it wasn't an easy solution last year or an -- there's no easy solution -- >> nobody says it's easy. of course, the -- >> the politicians expect -- >> it's so big. i do think there's a difference between some guy in russia and the government attacking a company. i mean, this is a -- >> or a candidate. >> this is a government sanctioned scheme to use social media to influence things. that's different from -- >> why is it different from mike sernovich on twitter who is going to do this and could -- >> it's a systematic act by a government to -- >> what may be different is the ability of a corporation to reveal a little bit of national security leaks.
this is similar to after san bernardino when apple was asked to help unlock a phone to fight an anti-terror case. n they said, well, we have a corporate following that suggests we have to protect their privacy. we're not sure we can do this. there were congressional hearings about it. there was a lot of bad blood on this issue. so maybe the difference is you have large corporations that are big players in society and our economy trying to determine, do they have a responsibility to cooperate with our government to reveal national security? >> we're going to pick up this conversation right there. we have to sneak in a quick break. we'll be right back. (avo) when you have type 2 diabetes, you manage your a1c,
but you also have a higher risk of heart attack or stroke. non-insulin victoza® lowers a1c, and now reduces cardiovascular risk. victoza® lowers my a1c and blood sugar better than the leading branded pill. (avo) and for people with type 2 diabetes treating cardiovascular disease, victoza® is now approved to lower the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. and while it isn't for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. (avo) victoza® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and get medical help right away if you get symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so, stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area.
tell your doctor your medical history. gallbladder problems have happened in some people. tell your doctor right away if you get symptoms. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion, and constipation. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. ask your doctor about victoza®. then moisturize with isaveeno® skin relief. with oat oil and natural shea butter, it softens and smooths extra dry skin and lasts for 24 hours. aveeno®. naturally beautiful results®
...has grown into an enterprise. that's why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. now, i'm earning unlimited 2% cash back on every purchase i make. everything. what's in your wallet? i understood early that facebook was how donald trump was going to win. twitter is how he talked to the people. facebook would be how he won. >> and facebook is how he won. >> i think so. and i think donald trump won, but i think facebook was the method. it was the highway in which his car drove on. >> that was brad pascale, the
trump campaign digital media director on "60 minutes" a couple weeks ago. so they beat hillary clinton on facebook? wow. >> first of all, they spent a lot more money on advertising in wis was, in michigan and pennsylvania than the clinton campaign did. they targeted a lot of ads there. this digital debate if you're going to run ads online. i make an ad for television. i have to put who paid for it. and the federal race, the candidate has to say that they approve the ad. that takes a precious four seconds out of the 30 that we have. and these guys need to have some device to tell people who paid for this stuff. it should be pretty simple. if they resist that, they're crazy. >> tad testifies next week in this hearing. will the members of congress see this debate the way tad does in. >> meaning that they should put this stuff on there? >> yes. >> yes, these companies should.
they're crazy if they don't accept this now. it's just going to get worse and it's going to continue to be this. they've always wanted to be not regulated, self-regpumtd they haven't self-regulated and need to pay the price for it. >> i heard from a facebook person after that interview ran, and he said, see, the trump people were just better at it. we didn't do anything wrong. is that a sustainable defense? >> no. though they might have been. they might have been better at it and they did help them. as i said, there's some studies saying facebook really helped the trump administration, gave them more advice than they should have. but in general, these companies go into big advertisers. they go into p&g like this and help them figure out how to best use it. if it works really well, they'll buy more ads on facebook or twitter. that's not unusual. it's interesting the clinton administration was like, no thank you. >> the clinton campaign was saying, no thanks, we don't need your help.
i would get help from them because they know how to use the operation. >> heidi, let me bring you back in. on the politics for the social media companies, what's the vibe on capitol hill right now? what is -- and how has donald trump tweeting about facebook saying they were never on my side. they were on hillary's side. does facebook really want donald trump as a character witness? >> i don't think given who heads facebook that would necessarily be their top choice, but the thing that's really stunning when i go up to capitol hill and talk to the republican and democratic leadership is the fact that of this smorgasbord of investigations of russia that we have going on, we are now one year after the election. and there is still no good, complete autopsy of just the extent to which these platforms were used. that's because we're at the mercy of these companies. in some way a problem that it's a media having to force these disclosures and here we are at the dawn of the election cycle.
we know that russia has perfected these methods and other parts of the world, specifically ukraine where they also tried to tamper with votes there, unsuccessful. and yet we still don't have a full scope of the problem and what we're going to do about it and what may even be happening right now heading into 2018. >> let me give you a quick last word. do you think what heidi just described is resolved by anything that happens in open testimony? >> no, i think it's going to be super boring and lots of lawyers. >> guaranteeing we'll not carrying it now. >> it's a little more complicated but i see the point. no, it's going to be super boring. we'll not find out anything, and we do have tor wary for the next cycle because it's not just russia. it's the north koreans going, oh, that worked who had already attacked sony. it's the chinese. it's anybody who wants to cause problems in this country. so it is, like brad said, it's a highway and they're rolling down
these highways at massive speeds and crashing a lot of american democracies in a way. >> sounds really great. every day someone says something that keeps me refilling my ambien prescription. prescription. today is was. thanks for joining us. sneaking in one more break and will be right back. goin' up the country. later, gary' i have a motorcycle! wonderful. ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides. but on the inside, i feel like chronic, widespread pain. fibromyalgia may be invisible to others, but my pain is real. fibromyalgia is thought to be caused by overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves.
i'm glad my doctor prescribed lyrica. for some, lyrica delivers effective relief for moderate to even severe fibromyalgia pain. and improves function. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who've had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain, i can do more with my family. talk to your doctor today. see if lyrica can help.
emergency. coming short of declaring it a national emergency, something that had been contemplated. we're joined by nbc's kristen welker. give us the highlights, the reception its receiving. seemed like an elaborate announcement. >> reporter: it was. joined by those affected by the opioid crisis firsthand and as well as those on the front lines fighting, from medical to law enforcement officials. there were a couple big headlines here. he stopped short of declaring this a federal national emergency, as you pointed out. what does that mean? that means funds from the federal disaster relief fund will not go to fighting opioids. the administration says, look, that fund is for disasters like hurricanes. they are lookingality this. they say looking tat in terms of a long-term crisis, something that needs to be worked on over
time and, therefore, say the public health emergency makes more sense. it means, nicolle, they'll be able to roll back regulations in a number of states to deal with this crisis. there will also be some grant money that becomes available to those who are dealing with this and fighting this, and you heard the president say that there's going to be a real focus on prevention, and on helping those who are suffering from this disease. take a listen to a little more of what the president had to say when he spoke in very personal terms. >> it was a tough, tough thing that he was going through. but i learned because of fred. i learned. and that's what i think is so important. this was an idea that i had, where if we can teach young people not to take drugs, just not to take them, when i see friends of mine that are having difficulty with not having that drink at dinner, where it's literally almost impossible for them to stop i say to myself, i
can't even understand it. why would that be difficult? but we understand why it is difficult. >> reporter: nicolle, that was the president talking about his late brother fred in very personal terms, and we don't typically hear him talk that extensively about his brother and what he went through and all the lessons he learned from his brother. the question, will the administration be able to secure more dollars from congress to fight this? that's going to be the focus moving forward. >> kristen welker, thank you so much. interesting that general mccaffrey, a frequent critic of this president called the speech simply magnificent. governor chris christie, instrumental in helping this white house put together some of the policies behind this will join us tomorrow. the guest for the hour and we'll dig into this tomorrow. right now, we sneak in one more break and be right back. an ever. as the world leader in unmanned aerial systems, we're attracting the world's best talent to central new york. and turning the airport into a first-class transportation hub. all while growing urban areas
i'm ginnwith chantix.smoking with us in new york state, it takes a lot of planning to be a smoker. it's like when am i gonna be able to sneak out of here and go have a cigarette? i just knew i had to quit, and chantix was the method that actually worked for me. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. chantix reduced my urge to smoke. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix.
some of my final seconds, plugging phillip bump, unbelievable reporting on the dossier. we talk about it all the time. if you ever want to be in a conversation about it, read his piece. my thanks to my panel. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now. hi, chuck. >> nicolle, how are you? >> good. and you? >> good. always proud you're a colleague. thank you. >> i feel the same about you. >> yes. one of those days. so thank you. if it's thursday, it's the great republican divide. tonight -- the four worrying factions of the republican party. >> i don't think the american people want to see us up here yelling at each other. >> who are they fighting for? plus -- the american opioid crisis -- >> i want the american people