tv MSNBC Live MSNBC December 17, 2017 1:00pm-2:00pm PST
hello, everyone. i'm yasmin vossoughian. let's get started. hour two, bromance for the second time in a week, donald trump and vladimir putin exchanged praise over the phone. this time, the russian president thanking strup for a tip that foiled an alleged terror attack. and accusing mueller of getting e-mails from trump's transition team. and riding the blue wave. poll numbers reveal what could be a democratic wipeout in 2018. here we go, everybody.
>> is he setting the stage for firing mueller? >> no, there is nothing like that. >> what is the white house afraid of? >> this is not a bipartisan thing. >> we want our agents to be neutral. >> robert mueller comes to the table with such innate. >> they're pushing back on the process. >> this is a setup potentially to fire bob mueller. >> i think he is the person, the right person -- >> at dinner last night with the president and vice president, i hadn't heard anything about this, any firing. >> heated sunday, shall we say. the white house confirming today that president trump spoke by phone with russian president vladimir putin this morning. it is the second call this week between the two leaders, who also spoke on thursday. the white house says putin called trump to thank him for advanced warning from u.s. intelligence agencies about an alleged terror plot in st. petersburg. russian state television releasing a video showing the arrest and statement of the terror suspect, as you see there. the timing of the call is
sensitive, with bob mueller's investigation into russian election interference heating up. in a seven-page letter sent yesterday to the house oversight and senate homeland security committees, a trump lawyer accused bob mueller's team of obtaining thousands of trump campaign e-mails illegally. a spokesman for mueller tells nbc news that all e-mails were received either with the consent of the account's owner or through the, quote, appropriate criminal. ellen farkas is former deputy assistant secretary of defense for russia, ukraine and eurasia. geoff bennett, white house correspondent, danny cevallos. welcome to you all this sunday evening. geoff, i'm going to start with you. what's the white house saying about trump's phone call today? >> well, you know, we've been waiting for a few hours for the official white house readout, the official white house characterization of this phone call. because as you said, vladimir
putin initiated this phone call to president trump and then went public with it, so make of that what you will. but here's the readout from the white house. i'll read part of it to you. it says this -- "president trump appreciated the call and told president putin that he and the entire united states intelligence community were pleased to have helped save so many lives. president trump stressed the importance of intelligence cooperation to defeat terrorists wherever they may be. both leaders agreed that this serves as an example of the positive things that can occur when our countries work together. president putin extended his thanks and congratulations to central intelligence agency director mike pompeo and the cia." so, this sort of represents an attempt at a reset. i'd say the relationship between the u.s. and russia is at its lowest point in some decades, given russia's annexation of crimea, and of course, its interference in the 2016 presidential election. and as you point out, this is, what, the second time in four days that president trump and vladimir putin have spoken on the phone? the last time, apparently, president trump thanked vladimir
putin for congratulating him on the success of the u.s. stock market. >> so, as geoff mentioned, we just literally got three out from the white house a minute or less. our source initially was the kremlin, who released the readout of their phone call with president trump. why would putin be publicizing this? >> because, i mean, this is obviously directed towards our public and towards the president. you know, again, i think this is an attempt at a reset. it's a kind of let's put all of this behind us, you know, message that they have been sending to us, you know, frankly, since they invaded georgia in 2008, the country of georgia, since they invaded and illegally annexed crimea in ukraine in 2014. but now they're trying to tell america and our president, forget about the interference in the u.s. elections and the political campaign, you know, elicit campaign that they launched against our democracy. let's just put that behind us. and they always dangle in front
of us this cooperating on counterterrorism. you know, i can go into all the examples where the russians always talked about how they wanted to cooperate with us. and frankly speaking, when they did, it always fell a little short. so, and again, i can talk about boston bomber, i can talk about sochi olympics. in each of those instances, they weren't completely full, you know, giving us the full information. and you know, we would love counterterrorism cooperation with them, but not on the backs of the ukrainian people, for sd example. >> do they cooperate with regards to counterterrorism, and how often? >> well, to some extent, our intelligence relationship has been insolated from the whims of our bilateral relationship writ large. and even during times when our relationship is really suffering, there is an ongoing dialogue. now, the extent to which it's of value to our side, certainly they're always pleased to accept intelligence from us. of course, there was an attack on the st. petersburg subway back in april, and so we're
helping to prevent a terrorist attack. that's a good thing. and you know, the russians always appreciate when we provide intelligence. they're always trying to dissect it to determine our sources and our methods. >> so, daniel, the "washington post" actually has a story on president trump doubting u.s. intelligence agencies, and in fact, in favor of pursuing a relationship with putin over his own intelligence agencies. >> right. >> he was asked who the three guys are that he admires most. the three guys in the world that he admires most are president xi jinping of china, turkish president tayyip erdogan, and putin. what's your reaction to this? >> so, vladimir putin read that article as well, and he knows that any praise that he gives the president would be a little more gasoline on the fire of the multiple investigations of this administration in relationship with russia. putin does that knowing he adds another, as if we need another measure of conspiracy out there
for people to follow. and i think that's part of the motivation for why vladimir putin praised the president, praised the economy. >> so, evelyn, this is really just sort of tossing another match to the fire, it seems? >> yeah, i think so. i mean, it is interesting, though, there's a potential element here where putin's actually not helping the president, and that makes it interesting to me to think about whether this russian president really wants trump to be his counterpart for the long haul. so, that element of it i think is interesting. because remember, he's pulling a power play not just with the american people in america but with president trump, and maybe he's reminding him of something, i don't know. it's very odd. and normally, you don't talk publicly -- >> but if we go with that, evelyn, then we're assuming that this is actually about trump, but isn't this really just, in fact, about putin? >> it's usually always first and foremost about putin, so he's showing the russian people, look how important i am, i can protect you. that is the most important thing that he has to do because he's
facing elections in march, and that's how he won in 2000 originally. there's a lot of controversy about the bombs that went off in moscow and in other cities. there are pretty well-documented journalistic investigations indicating that possibly the russian security forces were behind the bombings themselves, but nevertheless, putin used the law and order, i'm going to protect you from those chechen terrorists to get into office. and so, that element is still there. and of course, that works for president trump as well to try to say, well, i'm going to keep america safe. that was part of his platform as well. >> all right, let's change gears here, geoff. i want to talk about the reporting about bob mueller and the trump transition team with regards to those e-mails. what do you know? >> reporter: well, i just got off the phone not long ago with a source close to the trump transition team who tells me a couple things. this source says that the seven-page complaint letter that was written to members of congress was written entirely by members of the transition, without consulting or coordinating with the trump white house.
the other thing the source says is that robert mueller's special counsel team has used information gleaned from these e-mails as part of its ongoing russia probe. so that's another sort of marker that we should lay down. this person does believe that mueller obtained -- mueller's team obtained those e-mails from the federal government unlawfully, improperly. mueller's team, we should say, is defending its processes, defending its work. and so, you know, you have here, as some people have said, they see this as an attempt by trump allies to discredit the russia investigation just as it heats up, just as the circle tightens in closer and closer around the oval office. >> do you think there's any weight to this at all, danny? >> all i can tell you -- >> there is weight to this -- >> oh, sorry. >> no, go ahead, danny. >> so, is there any weight to the argument that the e-mails were wrongfully gotten by mueller? as it seems right now, probably not. as a general rule of thumb, yes,
you may have a privacy interest in your e-mails, your communications, your papers, but if a third party has possession of them, he's one of the persons that you communicated with, and he turns over those e-mails, there's not a whole lot that you can do to prevent that. in addition, if your e-mail ends in dot-gov, you have an even lesser privacy interest in it, because anything with a dot-gov at the end of the e-mail address is implicitly property of the government. so, it seems so far that the mueller investigation team has gotten the e-mails correctly. however, if the trump team had a problem with it, the proper avenue is to file a sealed, which is a secret motion, and deal with the court. if you don't want that information to come out, that's the way to do it. >> yeah, all right. evelyn farkas, dan hoffman, geoff bennett and danny cevallos, thank you for joining me. very much appreciate it. coming up, reaction to one prominent republican giving three reasons why he doesn't
so this is the all-new chevy equinox. it's gorgeous. it offers rear seat reminder, built-in 4g lte wifi... apple car play compatibility... wow... ...and teen driver technology. that's crazy... now to get all of these features, you'd need all six of those crossovers. that's insane! yep, and you still wouldn't get everything that's in this equinox. wowww... six cars in one. use your employee discount for everyone to get forty -five hundred dollars below msrp on this 2018 chevy equinox. find new roads at your local chevy dealer.
health insurance because there's going to be an increase in health insurance for about 13 million people. >> all right, we're talking taxes, everybody. welcome back. randi weingarten, president of the american federation of teachers, sounding off on how the republican tax plan will impact your bottom line. one republican not voting on the bill will be senator john mccain. cbs news reporting in the last hour he will miss the vote because of treatment for his brain cancer. president trump, however, has called proposed tax cuts a "christmas gift," but recent polls suggest americans are not nearly as enthusiastic. one poll finds that more than half of americans surveyed did not support the gop tax plan. another finds more than 60% of americans think that the big winners will be the wealthy and only 17% think the middle class will benefit. president trump hopes to sign the proposed bill into law before the end of the year, so let's get into it. "washington post" columnist dana milbank, sarah westwood, washington correspondent for
"the washington examiner" and katherine ram pell with the "washington post." sarah, i'll start with you. the republicans want to get something passed by their own self-imposed deadline to get a legislative win here. do you think it's going to happen? >> i think republicans are on track to get this passed next week. all signs point to a success for republicans, because not only do they have the symbolic deadline of getting this done before christmas so they can deliver that big, beautiful christmas president to america that president trump promised, but they have a very real procedural deadline now that doug jones will be coming to the senate in january. the republicans will lose one of their three seats that give them the majority in the senate. they can't afford to lose a single vote now that you have, like you mentioned, john mccain in the hospital, and they don't necessarily know that they have all the votes. it's not over until it's over. so, they know they need to get this done before doug jones comes and joins them in washington, and so there's not a lot of room for error. the pressure, i think, is going to carry this over the finish line. >> but katherine, if you have
over half of americans who don't agree with this tax plan, how is that a legislative win? >> it's a win, i think, in the minds of republicans in that this is their signature issue -- >> that they get something passed. >> even if it's a terrible thing that's passed, even if america hates it. i think they may be getting the calculus wrong, to be clear -- >> who? >> republican party, the republican leadership, in that this legislation is the most unpopular piece of major legislation in decades. it is more unpopular, even, than tax increases passed by bill clinton and george h.w. bush. the american public hates this bill. they do face the prospect of a major populist backlash going forward next year, assuming people are able to organize and actually get out and vote. but it could come back to bite them in the rear, is my point. >> when do you see the ripple effects of all this? when will people actually be able to see this with regards to their pocketbooks? >> well, in the near term, actually, it will cut taxes for many americans, for most
americans, in fact. the problem is that the amount by which their taxes go down for many people won't be that material. and besides that, the way that it sort of filters through to paychecks may not be big enough to overcome the terrible image that this legislation has. and a lot of americans understand also that even if they're getting tax cuts next year, those tax cuts are temporary because of the way the bill is structured. they actually sunset, they expire within a few years. >> dana, you have an expiration date of 2025 for a lot of these tax cuts, no separation daexpirr the corporate tax cut, though. >> right. and they say, you know, it's as good as permanent because the congress will extend it. well, if it was good as permanent, why was it necessary to make the actual corporate tax cuts permanent? i think katherine's analysis is exactly correct, because the average voter's not particularly going to care about whether the wealthy got more.
they want to know whether they're getting more. when george bush had his big tax cut years ago, they did something very smart. they had a short-term check coming out to americans, a couple hundred dollars, something that they could see that was tangible. to the extent there's any tax cut to most americans, it's going to be so small that they're really not going to feel it. the wealthy will feel it plenty, and they'll be thanking president trump and the republicans for that. they're going to have very little to show for it, so it's hard to see how this gets any more popular in the eyes of americans. what they will see is that the debt that this president promised to eliminate, or at least havlf, is quite going in the different direction. >> $1.5 trillion, according to the latest score. so you would think republicans are all on board and democrats are not for the optics of it all, republicans want to get a legislative victory through by the deadline.
john kasich had something to say on "meet the press" earlier today, not necessarily on board with everything. let's listen. >> look, do i think they could have done better for the middle class? i do. do i think they could have done better for the working poor? i mean, rubio tried to get something. he made some progress. but they could have, you know, increased the rates a little bit for big business. it wouldn't have mattered. >> sarah, your reaction to that? >> well, first of all, i think john kasich has been a critic of a lot of things that the republican majority has done and a lot of things this president has done, so it's not necessarily surprising to hear him criticize this plan, but the thing is, if this plan grows the economy the way republicans are saying, this could really help grease the wheels for them in 2018 and 2020. if, however, as critics are saying, the growth projections are far, far too optimistic and this ends up increasing the deficit by even more than the non-partisan tax analysts are saying, then it could come back and haunt republicans. it just all comes down to whether these tax cuts,
particularly for corporations, for pass-through entities, end up performing the way that republicans are saying, because if they do, i think republicans will be able to count this as a win, but we just don't know until these go into effect exactly how it's going to shape the economy. >> right. will these corporations actually reinvest back into the economy, now that they're getting these huge tax cuts? i want to read what kasich just said verbatim, because dana, he says, "look, do i think they could have done better for the middle class? i do. do i think they could have done better for the working poor? i do." isn't this exactly what a tax plan is supposed to do is help these people that don't have? >> well, that's exactly what it was supposed to do, and do you remember then candidate trump running around saying he was going to get rid of this carried interest loophole and, you know, take it to the hedge fund managers. of course, it does no such thing, and it's, in fact, you know, cutting the highest tax rate. so, it's entirely opposite, and i think kasich is quite wisely
staking out ground saying, no, this is not doing what this populist candidate said it was going to do, and kasich's going to look pretty good for his political future, assuming that, as was just discussed, there isn't some wild response to this that economists don't seem to expect. >> katherine, i want to owned this, because president obama did advocate a corporate tax cut as well. so -- >> it was corporate tax reform. there is a big difference between those two things. >> make that distinction. >> okay, reform means lowering the rates but also broadening the base, so getting rid of a lot of the loopholes and deductions and things that result in the actual rate not being reflective of what firms pay, right, because they get to deduct so much. so, the plan that obama had pushed would bring down the rates, but it would broaden the base, it would close a lot of those loopholes. this plan does no such thing. this plan actually makes the corporate tax side much more
complicated, and in fact, creates more opportunities for exploiting it -- >> more loopholes. >> more loopholes, some of which are deliberate and some of which are accidental because this thing is jammed through so quickly that legislators don't even know what's in it. and tax accountants, including my father, and lawyers are going to have a field day with this! hi, dad! yes, they're going to have a field day with this thing because it's so poorly written that, in fact, there are many more loopholes. so, it's really not reform. if anything, it's making the system much worse. it's bringing down rates, which, yes, democrats have backed in the past, but bringing down rates on the condition that you simplify the whole system and you broaden the base. >> all right, dana milbank, sarah westwood, katherine rampel, thank you so much for joining me. developing news in atlanta, georgia. a ground stop is forcing all flights into jackson hartsfield international airport to be grounded. a major power outage. the delay will continue to occur
at the world's busiest airport until repairs are made. of course, this is happening during the busy travel season. we'll have more after the break. ( ♪ ) more people shop online for the holidays than ever before. (clapping) and the united states postal service delivers more of those purchases to homes than anyone else in the country. ( ♪ ) because we know, even the smallest things are sometimes the biggest.
even the smallest things but on the inside, i feel chronic, widespread pain.like most people. 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. only fleet enemas feature the lubricated gentle glide tip for comfortable relief in minutes. not hours. and an ez-squeeze bottle for gentle, simple, fast relief. fleet enemas. the start of fast relief. we35 mules,ur doors with 70 mega-watts, and an ice plant. but we brought power to the people- redefining what that meant from one era to the next. over 90 years later, we continue to build as america's 3rd largest investor in infrastructure. we don't just help power the american dream... we're part of it.
focusing on the 2018 midterm elections. the strategy for both parties is very different, not surprisingly. for republicans, how much will this align with the president and his policies, and will he campaign on their behalf? for democrats, how much will identity politics play a part to win votes? joining us, republican strategist and former white house aide joe watkins and julianna maxwell, former directsor of progressive media for the clinton campaign. welcome to you both this sunday evening. joe, i'm going to start with you. dems, they have a lead. a new nbc news/"wall street journal" poll showing for the first time in nine years democrats have a double-digit lead among voters in congressional midterms with 50% rooting for democratic control of the congress. what do you think this means for republicans? and would you advise democrats to run with this? >> well, certainly, democrats are advantaged by having their
voters more excited about showing up at the polls. turnout really does matter, as we saw in the election in alabama, where democrats, especially african-americans, turned out to vote on election day in what was thought to be a low-turnout cycle, and they elected doug jones to the u.s. senate, which a lot of republicans approved as well. but nationally, it's going to be a challenge for republicans, and it will really matter district by district and state by state, because not every district or state would be the same, but they've got to look at what happened in virginia, in alabama with doug jones being the first democrat elected in decades to the u.s. senate from alabama, an arguably strong red state, and they've got to say it's going to be hard in 2018. they're going to have to work very, very hard to retain seats in the house and the senate in 2018. >> so, 59% of democrats say they have a high level of interest in next year's election, compared to 49% for republicans. how do you sort of sustain this enthusiasm over the next, what, ten months or so?
>> well, i think you spend the time organizing and actually making sure people in those districts have the appropriate i.d. so that you don't have what happened in wisconsin in 2016 happen again where people are showing up and unable to cast their ballots because of a voter i.d. law. so, i think the combination that's a winning one for 2018 for democrats is to ensure that you have high voter turnout in the black community, that you're engaging millennials, and that you're making sure that suburban white women are going out to the polls and are excited about the candidates. i think one of the bright silver linings -- >> it's not easy, though. do democrats have it in them? >> yeah. >> yes? >> i think so. i think what we saw in virginia and what we saw in alabama is proof positive that if you engage the base of the party, which is black women, that you will win elections. there is a lot of research that goes into this dynamic. one of my colleagues on the campaign, maya harris, wrote a report about the growing force of black women as an important aspect of the electorate that win elections up and down, all
the way up to the president, but all the way down to local races and state senate races, and i think as a result of donald trump winning the election and all of the terrible things that he said about women, there are a number of candidates -- >> well, they're criticized for not necessarily engaging the minority vote as she should have. >> i think there was a lot out front in the mainstream about her e-mails, so there wasn't a lot of messaging that broke through. i will say as someone inside the campaign, we absolutely were trying to engage those communities, but when the media's only talking about e-mails, it's hard to -- >> so you're blaming us. >> i'm not blaming you. i'm just saying that was a factor. that was a factor. >> joe, do the republicans march trump on to the campaign trail with an approval rating of 41% right now? >> again, it depends district by district and state by state. there are some districts where members of congress in tough re-election battles may not want him to come to energize the democratic base.
in other districts he's still very popular, so they'll want him to come out and help them get re-elected. so really depends on the district-by-district basis as to whether or not you want the president to come in to stump for you. again, think of this also, that on the senate side, you've got about 34 seats that are up for re-election in 2018. only nine of those are republican. the other 25 are democrat seats. and so, there are fewer seats for him to work for on the senate side than there are on the house side. every house member, of course, is up in 2018, so there are just a lot more elections on the house side than there are on the senate side. but it just depends on what district you're in and what state you're in as to whether or not you want the president to show up for you. >> who do the democrats need to sort of be on the campaign trail come 2018? who are the superstars? >> well, i think senator kamala harris is a superstar. i think joe biden is going to be an effective campaigner. >> cory booker. >> i think barack obama, cory booker. you saw he went down to alabama as somebody who has his sights set on 2020, to engage the black
community there. and i think some of the things that democrats have been talking about right after the election -- engaging more white, working-class voters -- i think that some of the special election results are proving that to be a lie. i think that what we're learning is that if you actually engage black voters and mobilize them to the polls and give them messages that resonate, you can win elections. and i think that democrats are starting to learn that lesson, and hopefully, they'll be successful in 2018. >> have you gotten a call from 2020 as to the fact that joe biden and either kamala harris or cory booker are running? was that a shake of the head? >> i always get asked about 2020 and i always say, let's see who rises to the top. >> right. >> let's give them a shot. let's give them all an equal shot. i'm not hanging my hat on any individual person yet. it's too early. we're worried about 2018. >> all right, thank you to you both. coming up, everybody, turning pain into a promise. five years after losing her son in sandy hook, her mission to bypass lawmakers to get the change that she wants. first, everybody, criticism
from republican lawmakers force bob mueller out of a job after christmas. that is the question, will he be fired? your brain is an amazing thing. but as you get older, 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.
>> all right, so that was democratic congresswoman jackie speier during an interview with a television station in california. the congresswoman was referring to a possible firing of russia investigation special counsel bob mueller by president trump. the investigation has the president's team, members of the gop, and the fbi giving very different reactions. there is a lot to sort through, so let's bring in the panel. "washington post" columnist dana mill banks, our westwood correspondent for the "washington examiner," and katherine rampel, opinion columnist for the "washington post." i want you all to listen to senator joe manchin on "meet the press" from earlier today. >> i do not at all believe that mr. mueller has been compromised or his investigation. i think he's beyond reproach. i think anybody who's ever worked with him who have watched him operate for the last how many years under democrats and republicans. >> so, very different tones here. but then on wednesday, three house republicans, they said
this. >> this is disgusting, unaccountable bias, and there's no way that could not affect a person's work. >> i think the public trust in this whole thing is gone. >> we are now beginning to better understand the magnitude of this insider bias on mr. mueller's team. >> so you have some people wanting to ratchet up sort of efforts to discredit bob mueller, then you have someone else saying that he's completely on the fair side of things. what do we believe here, sarah? >> trump and his closest allies have always been somewhat critical of the mueller probe, but what you're starting to see is republicans on capitol hill take up this line of attack that potentially mueller has been compromised, and that argument is really effective because there is an element of truth underlying that line of attack. there have been questions about the political affiliations of some of the people on mueller's team. they have donated overwhelmingly to democrats. we've seen the emergence of these text messages suggesting
that some of the people who were once investigating president trump did harbor some animus towards him. now, we don't know what any of that means for the investigation. it could be nothing. >> but we do know that those text messages were not exchanged during the mueller investigation. that was happening well before -- >> while that investigator was looking into the clinton e-mail investigation which butchers another argument by the republicans, that that investigation was taped. so, this could be a meaningless revelation, but because there is an element of truth, it is effective and republicans are seizing on it. >> dana, are people in the fbi and cia not allowed to have political opinions? >> no, and i don't think there's -- >> and then also able to do their job? >> and i don't even think there is an element of truth here. look, james comey, republican. bob mueller, republican. rod rosenstein, republican. so, you know, let's keep that in perspective. and -- >> well, then you have the criticism of jim comey helping out clinton, which he said, yet
he's a republican. >> comey came out a week before the election and said he is reopening the investigation. it is very hard to argue that had he not done that, the election would have turned out the way it did, because it was by such a close margin. so, that sort of nonsense on its face. now, if bob mueller had, indeed, asked what each of the people he's going to hire, what their political beliefs are, who they have contributed to, he would have violated official department of justice policy. so, of course, people have their own political opinions and are free to have those. now, in this case, when this one member of the team was texting with his paramore, mueller intervened and sent him somewhere else. so look, this is basically, the argument has become there was no contact with russia, then there was no collusion with russia, then it's like the president --
not a crime if the president does it. and now we've moved into mueller is tainted and corrupt, and that's sort of the last line of defense. >> well, and to be clear here in what i was saying was that president trump has continuously criticized jim comey, a republican, as you mentioned, for not necessarily investigating clinton to the utmost degree as president trump believes he should have. let's take a listen to marc short, the president's director of legislative affairs. he was actually responding to florida congressman matt gates calling for mueller's firing. >> is he setting the stage for firing bob mueller? >> no! no, there's no conversation -- >> there's no way. there's no way he's going to fire him? >> there's no conversation about that whatsoever in the white house, chuck. >> none whatsoever. >> we've continued -- you guys keep bringing that up. we've continued to cooperate in every possible way in that investigation. >> all right, they say there's no way this firing is going to take place. is there really no way? and then yet, if it were to happen, what would the optics of all of this be?
>> well, the optics would be terrible, but that doesn't mean that republicans on the hill would actually do anything about it. but no, of course i don't believe that the white house has not been considering any possible way -- >> you don't? >> no! i mean, trump said on tv that part of the reason that he fired comey was that comey wouldn't let this russia thing go. you know, comey has said -- >> it wouldn't look good, though. >> it wouldn't look good. and comey has said that trump pressured him to stop looking into whether flynn had lied to the fbi, and you know, couldn't he see his way clear to letting this go as well. so, it's hard to believe that given past statements by trump, past reports of what trump has asked, which is what looks like obstruction of justice, that trump is, you know, fine with letting this investigation proceed unhindered, given that he's clearly uncomfortable with the fact that the investigation exists to begin with. >> yeah. lots of gifts we could have around christmas. i'm not sure it would be a gift to the media, though.
all right, thank you, dana mill banks, sarah westwood and catherine rampell. let's look beyond the headlines, everybody. we are learning that a $300 million home is just one of several ultra luxury items for a saudi prince who talked about fiscal responsibility. "the new york times" reporting that mohammed bin salman bought the home back in 2015. his portfolio of acquisitions also includes a $500 million yacht. the 32-year-old heir to the saudi throne is cracking down, though, on corruption among the country's super wealthy. we're also getting a first look at prince harry's meeting with former president barack obama for an interview on the bbc. the full interview will air on december 27th. the prince, however, gave his guest a couple of tips. >> do i have to speak faster, because i'm a slow speaker? >> no, not at all. >> do i need a british accent? >> but if you start using long pauses between your answers, you're probably going to get the face. >> let me see the face. oh, okay. >> long pauses.
and the word of the year is femini feminism. merriam-webster said searches increased since 2016. several events may have caused it, including the women's march and the me too movement. didn't know i was allergic to ibuprofen. and i had fallen asleep... (scrappy barks) (amanda) he was totally freaked out, digging and pawing at me. and when i woke up i realized that i was in anaphylaxis and went to the emergency room. i don't know what i would do if he wasn't there. he's the best boy. (vo) through the subaru share the love event, we've helped the aspca save nearly forty thousand animals so far. get zero percent financing for 63 months on select models, plus we'll donate two hundred and fifty dollars to charity.
when the holidays have you feeling like dessert duty judy... hi. hi! serve up some marie callender's dutch apple pie. made with fresh fuji apples in a made-from-scratch crust. making you the best guest ever. because the holidays call for marie callender's. making you the best guest ever. our recent online sales success seems a little... strange?nk na. ever since we switched to fedex ground business has been great. they're affordable and fast... maybe "too affordable and fast." what if... "people" aren't buying these books online, but "they" are buying them to protect their secrets?!?! hi bill. if that is your real name. it's william actually. hmph! affordable, fast fedex ground.
this ♪s electricity. this is a power plant. this is tim barckholtz. that's me! this is something he is researching at exxonmobil: using fuel cells to capture carbon emissions at power plants. this is the potential. reducing co2 emissions by up to 90%... while also producing more power. this could be big. energy lives here.
welcome back, everybody. thursday marked the fifth anniversary of the tragic mass shooting at sandy hook elementary school. that's where a young man used an ar-15 to kill 20 children and 6 of their teachers. the majority of the victims were 6 years old. it took less than five minutes for the shooter to spray 154 bullets in that school. five years later, the mass shootings have not stopped. that includes the deadliest mass shooting in u.s. history. this october, a man fired more than 1,100 rounds from a las vegas hotel room, hitting over 500 people and killing 58. five years after sandy hook and two months after las vegas, washington has done little to prevent the sale of automatic weapons or bump stocks used in the las vegas attack. the only gun-related bill passed by the house since las vegas is one allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines. that bill is now awaiting a senate vote.
joining me now, the woman who started the organization sandy hook promise after losing her 6-year-old, dylan, in the sandy hook shooting. nicole, thanks for joining me this sunday. >> thank you. >> this marks five years since lost your son. how are you doing? >> every day is pretty awful without my son. i'm focused on the good work my organization is doing so we can prevent these tragedies from happening in the future. >> and the work that you are doing must help you cope with the incredible amount of sadness that you have after the loss. >> i suppose in part it's a little bit therapeutic to know that i'm giving back to others and helping other moms and dads from not experiencing what i have been experiencing. it's also the only way i know how to honor my son's life. >> take us through exactly what kind of work you have been doing in order to prevent the type of tragedy that happened at sandy hook. >> what we do is offer free training to schools in how to
recognize the signs of someone who is at risk of hurting themselves or someone else and take intervention. it is all upstream of before a weapon ever comes into the equation. we have had tremendous success. we have trained about two and a half million kids so far in the last three years. we have stopped multiple school shooting threats, suicides, firearms from coming into schools. we have had legislative successes as well. >> you talk about getting to the point where you realize we have to find a way to recognize the signs, why it is people are putting guns in their hands and harming themselves or others. because you hit so many roadblocks along the way with regards to your work. >> yeah. when we started off we were focused on background checks. we didn't know what we didn't know then. it was still early. we were just starting our education on what are the causes of gun violence and the possible solutions. so we dove into politics and then discovered, you know, that's not how you change things
in our country. social change is not a top-down approach. it's bottom up. it starts with programs and education. we decided to focus efforts there and we are having tremendous success which i'm proud of. >> you talk about the signs and i want people to watch this psa video called tomorrow's news that gets into some of the warning signs. let's play this and then we'll talk. >> where a 15-year-old will kill four children, two adults and then turn the gun on himself. >> when the shooting starts happening tomorrow, first i will probably just think it's firecrackers or a car backfiring or something. >> he told some of us his dad kept a gun in his closet and he always talked about using it on, you know, the people that bullied him. tomorrow i'll probably say that i wish i'd told someone. >> after the shooting we're going to feel bad about picking on him. until then we'll probably keep doing it because he's pretty weird. >> tomorrow i'll point out that
something seemed off with him since the beginning of the school year. >> i'm joined by the officers who will be the first responders tomorrow. what additional details can you share? >> someone is expected to tell us after the shooting that the shooter has been posting on social media about doing this for weeks. >> how will you explain the shooting to my daughter? >> i won't get to explain it to her because she won't make it. >> this is christine lynn, reporting from the scene of another shooting. we'll see we never saw it coming. >> wow, nicole, that's incredibly powerful. how do people see that? and how did you come up with the concept and how do you combat this in schools? how do you make sure people recognize the signs and act on them? >> people can go to sandy hook promise.org to view the video and share it. we did a similar psa about how the signs are right in front of you often. but until you are trained you don't know what you are seeing.
this is the same. you can listen to the script and know that's almost like every single newscast you see after a shooting. the signs and signals always come out. sandy hook, they came out. a lot of the other mass tragedies we have seen. they come out afterwards. these are things we can prevent if we know what to look for. that's what we teach people. we do it for free. we never want money to be a barrier to saving a life. we just want to teach people how to prevent tomorrow's tragedies by learning how to recognize the signs today. >> nicole, i commend your spirit, your incredible strength. i could never imagine going through what you went through. even when all of this went on, i myself wasn't a parent at the time. i am a parent now to a 1-year-old. i can't even imagine going through what you went through. the fact that you are putting your energy and time now into sort of changing things in this country and trying to make something happen is really
incredible. nicole hockly, thank you. >> thank you. >> my thoughts are with you. thank you. moments ago, president trump and the first lady landed back at the white house after a weekend vacation at camp david. the president came to talk about john muller and senator john mccain. let's listen. we actually don't have that. as we head to break i want to look ahead at what's happening on msnbc. my colleague will be here for the news at 5:00. then "meet the press" and kasie d.c. and then the year's ten most. a look at the stories that dominated 2017. you need to buy a car
and you'd think with all these options it would be easy. but only true car shows you what others paid for the car you want and you can connect with certified dealers who offer prices based on this same information. none of those other sites do that. this is true car. more people shop online for the holidays than ever before. and the united states postal service
a little louder. the helicopter makes a lot of noise. [ inaudible ] >> yeah. that's right. it is the anniversary. hopefully everything will normalize but right now they are not doing the right thing. when they don't do the right thing, we are not going to do the right thing. that's all there is to it. we have to be strong with cuba. the cuban people are incredible people. they support me very strongly. we'll get cuba straightened out. [ inaudible ] >> no, i'm not. no. what else? what, are you surprised? what? i did speak to cindy mccain. i wished her well. i wished john well. they have headed back.
i understand he'll come if we ever needed his vote which hopefully we won't. the word is john will come back if we need his vote. that's too bad. it's tough. he's going through a very tough time. no question about it. he will come back if we need his vote. thank you very much, everybody. >> hello, everyone. this is ayman mohyeldin live here at msnbc world headquarters in new york. you were just watching president trump in an impromptu press conference returning from his weekend at camp david addressing members of the media there at the white house after getting off of marine one talking about a few different subjects. among them, i assume the first question was the mueller investigation. we'll get into that with the panel. at the end of those comments, talking about john mccain after reports that john mccain will be headed back to arizona following a few days of medical treatment
here in the east coast. he is expected to miss the vote on the tax bill scheduled for later in the week. we heard president trump talk about that. let's bring in the panel. we want to start with msnbc correspondent at the white house jeff bennett. jeff, good to have you with us. bring us up to speed on what we heard. we were not able to hear all of the questions that were directed at president trump. we were able to pick up some of the answers. fill us in on what we have missed. >> well, i heard the president respond to kelly o'donnell who had the first question. our colleague kelly o'donnell asked him about the story out today, broke last night that the trump transition team, at least one lawyer with the trump transition team is accusing special counsel robert mueller's team of improperly accessing e-mails sent by the transition. you heard the president say, you know, not so good, not so good