ten second last word, elise. >> it's dark. we're forced to talk about it. this could be hundreds of thousands of civilians, world war iii. of course we have to. but it is painful to think that we are somewhat maybe being used by a president who is lashing out his own advisers. >> wagging the dog. that's what they call it. thanks to everyone. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now. hi, chuck. >> i keep trying to comfort myself, it's just august. it's just somebody that's bored. >> you promised august pain. i blame you. >> maybe the rhetoric is just due to boredom. thank you. if it's tuesday, president trump sends quite the new warning over to north korea. tonight, going nuclear. >> north korea has passed a significant milestone. >> what north korea's latest advancement in their nuclear program means for the safety of the united states.
>> north korea best not make any more threats to the united states. they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. >> don't know much about geography? can democrats plot out a successful plan to beat back their geographic disadvantage in 2018? the password is -- why everything you know about those pesky, complicated, tough-to-remember online passwords is totally wrong. this is "mtp daily" and it starts right now. good evening. welcome to "mtp daily." i'm chuck todd here in washington. we, of course, end up tealing with breaking news out of north korea, which raises this question -- how will president trump respond? we now know he's going to respond.
nbc news confirmed what was first reported by "the washington post," that north korea has successfully crossed a major hurdle in its nuclear program. they've been able to shrink a warhead to fit inside a missile. we've seen north korea advance irn k incrementally towards this for years. i know it feels like white noise to some of you when you feel like north korea advanced again. this is a big again. this president has used a lot of bluster, but we don't have an idea of what he's going to do about this problem. and today's news could leave him with a lot fewer options. the trump administration said before that a military response is on the table. something the president appeared to reiterate today to reporters at his summer home in new jersey. >> north korea best not make any more threats to the united states. they will be met with fire and
fury like the world has never seen. he has been very threatful beyond a normal statement. and as i said, they will be met with fire, fury, and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before. >> it was august of 1945 that the world did see the power that could scare some folks, that's just for sure. the u.s. along with the rest of the u.n. security council voted to impose strict new sanctions on north korea. and secretary of state rex tillerson is in asia working with allies to counter the threat. yesterday he had out what north korea would have to do in order for direct talks to begin with the united states. it's clear so far talking and sanctions aren't doing enough. and north korea doesn't believe the u.s. is willing to use military force against them. right now we're seeing the
consequences of 20 years of failed diplomacy. and what happened when a country calls the world's bluff? are we staring at the product of that? joining me is msnbc's senior national security analyst. very active in the early parts in the bush administration. juan, is this the result -- is this north korea calling the world's bluff? and then i've got to ask you about the president's rhetorical response today. >> chuck, i think there are a couple of things at play. one, this is a regime trying to not only establish its power but demonstrate its power in pyongyang in trying to accelerate its missile and nuclear capabilities. and the news today obviously suggests that that pace is much faster than prior estimates have suggested. and so they have -- they have perhaps reached the point which they've been able to miniaturize a nuclear device to put it on a
missile to hit the united states. if that's the case, they've surmounted one of the key technical hurdles that remains in their program. so that's one thing. certainly they have been conditioned to take the world to the point of brinksmanship. they know how to not only bluster and engage in bragging, but they know how to push the national community to the brink and the international community doesn't push back that hard or that often. it's been episodic. you're right to suggest that that's been a conditioning of the regime to think that they can push pretty hard without much consequence. >> i look back on this, and i wonder how good is our intelligence in north korea? and i say this because this is not the first time that we've been told, oh, yeah, it's much faster than we thought. at each step, as north korea has
gotten closer to this point, they've always gotten there faster than the united states expected. >> i think north korea is one of the intense enigmas, very hard to understand what's happening in the regime and hard to understand the intent and leadership and the strategy. but i think they've been open and clear about this. they're marching towards a nuclear capability. you've seen under kim jong-un an acceleration of the missile tests since he took over. three of the five nuclear tests that they've engaged in starting in 2006 have come under his rule. and so the intelligence is often incomplete and imperfect. but they're demonstrating where they're headed. the u.s. has a difficult time with nuclear programs. obviously, an understanding where these programs go. iraq is a good example. even with pakistan and india, there were difficulties, and understanding the timing, the capabilities and the extent of
these programs is a hard problem for the intelligence community. >> so the president said that north korea, if they threat again, and they threaten the united states verialy al verbal president said if they threaten again they'll be met with fire and fury. is that a red line? should that be interpreted as a red line? frankly, i see him say it around there. i think we're all conditioned to think well, jees, president trump likes to bloviate a little bit. he overuses words. but how is kim jong-un going to hear that? how is the world going to hear "fire and fury?" >> right. i think president trump is trying to recondition the environment. both with respect to north korea but also china and other parties who have a say in what happens next. i think certainly it's aggressive language, language that can be overread and to your point, can be read as a red line. i see it as a way of trying to recondition the environment and
even to signal to the chinese that the united states is losing patience and may decide to put other options on the table that here to forehave not been real options. you have a regime that is not only used to its own threats but willing to take measures like sinking naval vessels, cyber attacks and other things to provoke and prod. we then have to be ready to respond. i think the president's words suggest that he's ready to respond. i don't know what that looks like. and certainly in this case it could be incredibly dangerous. >> juan, i was just going to say, what would be the -- i buy the idea that the united states, because north korea doesn't believe that the military option is on the table that one of the things you would want to do is they need to believe that, right? in order for diplomacy to work, they need to believe that. how would you go about doing it
in a way that didn't sound the way the president did today? >> well, i'm not quite sure. i think this is a difficult needle to thread with north korea, especially given the sensitivities. i think part of this is not just what you say but what you do. i think the sanctions past over the weekend were significant, 15-0 at the u.n. it elicited a response, a pretty vocal response from north korea, given that the sanctions, if implemented properly and enforced, will affect their economy. i think it's demonstrated with military exercises, with south korea, japan, with other allies in the region, more of a military presence. we've seen the overflight of u.s. fighter jets and bombers to demonstrate american resolve. i think it also suggests that there has to be an acceleration of discussions with china as to what happens next. there has been some urgency to this. this has to be priority number one. more than what the president
says, i think it's what the united states does in concert with allies at this point that matters more. >> is there a case to be made that, boy, the president is sounding a little over the top in his rhetoric is designed to rattle china? >> absolutely. i think you've seen the president, in his tweets, in his diplomacy, in what the u.s. has tried to do diplomatically, to try to change the dynamics with china. i think one of the things -- you remember this, chuck, the israeli saber rattling at a key time when there were questions whether or not the europeans would impose more stringent sanctions on the oil industry in iran. so i think part of this is not just making north korea believe that we have some military options and these are options that can be taken before they have the capability of striking the united states with a nuclear
device, but also demonstrating to china that the calculous has changed and you have a president willing to use force potentially and willing to upset the current balance that will impact china's fundamental interests. that has been the key problem here, china has not seen a fundamental interest to pressure pyongyang to the point of stopping their nuclear program. >> they have some reasons now to do with economics and perhaps the united states. juan, we'll let you go. i know you're in demand in our world right now. i'm going to bring in our panel, robert trainer, glenn thrush and jennifer palmeri. welcome all. glenn, it seems to be one -- well, the president's response, there is some strategy behind it. what are you hearing out of the
white house? >> i think there is some strategy behind it. it is strategy filtered through the trump translator, as you can tell. it came out probably a little more coarse than you would get from a -- your standard issue president. but i think we're seeing a little bit of good cop and bad cop as juan referred to with tillerson over in manila talking with intermediaries, the chinese in particular. when we had the last nuclear test, president trump put out a tweet that put the pressure on the chinese. so the question here is, how is this being received in pyongyang? and we do not know. that is the black box in this equation. >> look, it was a point i wanted to make earlier. this has been a bipartisan policy failure for 25 years. it didn't work. and there's going to be a little bit of hand wringing about that. we got to this place because
diplomacy -- >> i inherited this mess. >> the sanctions didn't work. clinton, bush, obama. and they have to figure out how to put the military option back on the table. i get that. but boy, it's a little bit rattling. >> a little bit? just the body language. if you look at the tape, his arms are folded. i mean, glenn's right. there's a strategy, but the question is whether or not the rest of the world community really understands how this president operates. how he operates, you back him in a corner, he will punch back. he does not like to be bullied and he will call the bluff. in other words, if you push his buttons, he'll push back much harder. we know this president believes in american exceptionalism in a different time of way, meaning win, win, win at all costs. we also know that this president does not like to be seen as a failure. >> jennifer, north korea was on your former boss' agenda. it was the last thing he said to this president going in, saying
hey, this is going to be your number one problem. >> he wasn't paying attention. >> i always thought that the north korean problem always got -- well, as soon as the middle east is in some sort of stable period, then we can focus on this. i felt like that was a little bit of the attitude of the clinton and bush years, and a little bit of the obama years. is there some truth to this? >> i think that what was really going on, i think that the north korea work was happening in a way you don't see. it is something that i saw people spend a lot of time on, and you identified it as something that's not a success. but when you see what's happening right now, status quo doesn't seem like such a bad outcome for the bush administration or the obama administration. if you were keeping those seas relatively calm, deali igiven w you're dealing with. i do think we had -- the
movement over the weekend with the russians and the chinese letting the security council go forward, that was reassuring, because you thought okay, when it gets serious -- >> even the chinese. >> even the chinese and russians are going to be at the table. but going through the trump translator, if he botched that, which it sounds like he did by tying the fire and fury to the threat and not to action, you know, this -- it's scary. >> glenn, is it a -- you know, it was interesting. we were going to try to talk to ambassador chris hill, former ambassador to south korea. there's a lot of bad options here, and if you love the military option aside, there's only one option. you have to accept them to the nuclear club. is that something the united states -- do they lose their moral authority to be leader of the free world if they allow that to happen? and can we afford to buck the
world if the world isn't behind us to do it? >> here's what's interesting. the assumption superficially is that trump is the biggest hawk in the white house. >> no, he wanted to do a whole thing how he's a huge love. >> and flynn to some extent would have been a less militaristic security adviser. mcmaster made bellicose comments about north korea. mattis is no dove either. trump is the only one that ran on a more ambivalent attitude on military action. that is the great paradox. this projection of strength with the unwillingness to use it. the question is, again, is someone going to call him on this or will we have a resolution before it gets to that? >> it just feels like it wouldn't take much to have a drumbeat to a military use, and
that might not be healthy either. >> i'm interested to know what speaker ryan speaks, what steve bannon thinks on this issue. i would love to know if president trump is secure enough to reach out to some of his folks on capitol hill to get guy dance from them. i doubt it. >> it's definitely the toughest challenge this administration is facing, and it would be a tough challenge for any administration. this one has unique challenges. >> it's tough, mr. president trump. coming up, why a changing national map would prevent democrats from taking advantage of the president's low job approval ratings next year. we'll go through that and i'll explain why i don't totally buy into it. we'll be right back. 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. hey. what can you tell me about your new social security alerts? oh! we'll alert you if we find your social security number on any one of thousands of risky sites, so you'll be in the know. ooh. sushi. ugh. being in the know is a good thing. sign up online for free. discover social security alerts. atmore than one flavor, oruch texture, or color.ing. a good clean salad is so much more than green. and with panera catering, more for your event. panera. food as it should be.
opioid crisis. among the attend years, health and human services secretary tom price. >> federal drug prosecutions have gone down in recent years. we're going to be bringing them up and bringing them up rapidly. maybe by talking to you, telling them no good, really bad for you in every way. but if they don't start, it will never be a problem. the white house xhilcommiss on opioid abuse technically led by chris christie, who is not at today's briefing, recommended the president declare a national emergency to fight the crisis. there was some speculation that action would be taken today. that action was not taken today. some democrats say the president's promise to age opioid ravaged communities is
and i know that we have accident forgiveness. so the incredibly minor accident that i had tonight- four weeks without the car. okay, yup. good night. with accident forgiveness your rates won't go up just because of an accident. switching to allstate is worth it. welcome back. right now both parties are desperately trying to answer the same questions, believe it or not. even though one party has been winning everything and one hasn't. is this presidency at its breaking point? or not? is this trump's republican party or not? and are democrats sitting pretty for 2018 or not? but how on earth do you answer those questions when there's so much disagreement about what is or isn't? do you believe the polls? if you're a democrat, you would be measuring the drapes because the president's approval ratings are so awful. or do you believe the map? if you do, polls be darned,
because democrats are clustered in too many places. david washington says, the congressional map has a record setting bias against democrats, which means they can basically run the table in 2018 and still fall short of the house majority and lose five senate seats. if you believe all those republicans bucking the president, like congressman tom cole who says they ear gearing up for an ugly fight with the president over the debt limit. or mitch mcconnell who just becamed the president for saddling congress with unrealistic expectations. or do you believe the polls on senate republicans who bucked the president like john mccain and susan colins? looking at president trump's approval numbers and the fact that the first midterms are not kind to the president's party, democrats might be forgive for thinking 2018 is going to be a banner year for them.
you recently wrote a piece on the democratic party's map problem. mr. wasserman, welcome. >> thank you very much. >> look, i said about your piece, the piece, i didn't have an issue with. it was watching the reaction to the piece that was amazing to me. because what you're writing is if the democrats continue on the same messaging and identity politics and the republicans stay on this trajectory, we are headed for this geographic kachm that will be a night fair for the democrats. >> i think democrats could have a phenomenal year in 2018. they can win the house, i believe that. but in order to do so, and in order to hold their losses down in the senate or break even, they'll have to overcome a historic geographic disadvantage. hillary clinton won the popular vote by 2.1%. she lost the median house seat by 3.4%, the median senate seat
3.6. >> my issue, though, is this bias -- are they the victim of a geographic bias or did they create their own geographic bias? i look at this and say this is what you do when you stop campaigning. they didn't even bother to recruit a candidate in alabama, special senate election. on september 15, they're going to real iize they made a mistak there. they're not even trying to compete in some parts of this country anymore and they don't even pretend otherwise. >> well, look at who the democratic party's leaders are. nancy pelosi from carr, chuck schumer from new york. hillary clinton won those two states by 6 million votes combined. i'm not saying there's anything terrible by either leader's strategy. but when it comes to the party's
branding and the messaging, look at the results in 2016. it's not a coalition that can win the breadth of how and senate seats that the party 10 or 20 years ago could. >> do democrats look at this, should they say this is what gerrymandering did to us, or should democrats sit there and lambaste their own leaders going, you know, this race to be -- race to the coast, race to urbanize america, race to demographics has been too fast for middle america and they don't want to acknowledge that? >> well, look, gerrymandering plays a role, absolutely. when i hear democrats cite those statistics that i laid out in the article and say it's all gerrymandering, well, look at the senate. donald trump, even despite losing the popular vote, won 60 seats out of 100, if you go by his map, 30 states. so look at democrat's geographic
concentration on the coast and in big stcities and the senate s always had a bias towards smaller, more rural states. >> eight years ago, we were writing about the republican's deaf graph demographic problems, and they're never going to win national races again. i remember when the democrats had a rural problem. who has the tougher hill to climb right now, which party? >> well, coalitions change over time. and one of the fascinating aspects of politics has been when parties have transformed, they've gone for a new face that is outside the stereotype of what you think of as the party's coalition. donald trump is the last person you would have thought of as part of the traditional republican coalition in 2016.
my question is, can democrats find a new leader in 2020 who is outside the stereotype. >> people forget barack obama was outside that stereotype, not just race, but ideology. the assumption is you have to get some conservative southern democrat to win the white house. david wasserman, it's fun debate to have. you buy this theory, by 2040, 30% of the population will be represented by 70 u.s. senators and 70% will be represented by 30 u.s. senators? >> could be. >> is that where we're headed? >> could be. >> that's going to be a political nightmare. still ahead, the president who benefitted from fake news and complains endlessly about fake news, ended up falling for a version of fake news. we'll be right back. restlessness... extreme anxiety... pacing...
a constant urge to move. if someone you know is suffering from schizophrenia they may also be struggling with akathisia: a common side effect of some schizophrenia medications. learn more at myakathisia.com. it's your glass of willpower that helps keep cravings... ...far, far away. feel less hungry with the natural fiber in clinically... ...proven meta appetite control. from metamucil. ykeep you sidelined.ng that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you.
i needed something more to help control my type 2 diabetes. my a1c wasn't were it needed to be. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's suppose to do, release its own insulin. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity.
stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have a lump or swelling in your neck, severe pain in your stomach, or symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin, increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. once-weekly trulicity may help me reach my blood sugar goals. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar, activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.
and later on "mtp daily," the password is regret. trust me, a story that you'll want to hear. but first -- >> stocks finished lower on wall street. the dow snapping a ten-day winning streak after president trump issued that stern warning to north korea. the cao lost dow lost 33 points. walt disney reported a drop in quarterly profit and plans to launch espn streaming service and its own direct consumer streaming service. the deal means disney will pull
off of its movies from netflix. shares of netflix fell on that news, the stock losing more than 4%. th not just being in the military, but at home. she thinks she's the boss. she only had me by one grade. we bought our first home together in 2010. his family had used another insurance product but i was like well i've had usaa for a while, why don't we call and check the rates? it was an instant savings and i should've changed a long time ago. there's no point in looking elsewhere really. we're the tenneys and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today. twith choices like the classicr. crab lover's dream and new favorites like dueling crab legs with dungeness and snow crab. it's happening right now right here at crabfest. red lobster. now this is seafood. theso when i need to book tant to mea hotel room,tion. i want someone that makes it easy.
booking.com gets it. and with their price match, i know i'm getting the best price every time. visit booking.com. booking.yeah! strike a pose. ♪a. your eyes work as hard as you do. but do they need help making more of their own tears? if you have chronic dry eye caused by reduced tear production due to inflammation, restasis multidose™ can help... with continued use twice a day, every day, one drop at a time. restasis multidose™ helps increase your eyes' natural ability to produce tears, which may be reduced by inflammation due to chronic dry eye. restasis multidose™ did not increase tear production in patients using anti-inflammatory eye drops or tear duct plugs. to help avoid eye injury and contamination, do not touch the bottle tip to your eye or other surfaces. wait 15 minutes after use before inserting contact lenses. the most common side effect is a temporary burning sensation.
welcome back. president trump this weekend did something many on twitter have been guilty of from time to time, he fell for a fake account. he retreated an account appeared to be by a fan that was later shut down. it finds of appears to be part of twitter accounts with fake identities that are used to sell pro trump merchandise. so it was a business scam, not necessarily the work of russians. the president who loves to talk about fake news was hooked, well, by fake tweets, i guess. on face value, it seems benign,
but there are plenty of fake accounts like this, trying to spread false information. around half of president trump's tens of millions followers are fake accounting and bots. joining me now is clint watt. clint, i've been obsessed with this story for the last couple of days and i thought about a conversation we had on "meet the press" about three months ago right after you testified. you talked about president trump's twitter account was a target. in this case, it was a target for a business scam. but that he was always targeted and hoping to get the trump retweet. explain how this works. >> yeah. so if you want to influence the president or anyone, you can actually just do very simple analytics. you can just download all the president's tweets, see what words he used most commonly and build accounts and personas that
talk the same way the president does and pro-note him in the same way and you can appeal to his ego. when you appeal to his ego and repeat his messages or support him, you're more than likely to get a repeat or a response and influence the way he sees things. you can insert links and news and you can really start to shape his opinion by saddling up to him. it's a basic technique used in intelligence gathering. >> when you testified, is this kwquantitf quantifiable, or is it just speculating? how would we show our work here if we had endless amount of time? >> if you had the quantitative ability to do that, and there are some entities doing that, you could go through the entire volume of tweets, it's even more
challenging with president trump because he has about 32 million or so followers. but you can look at all the engagements around him and what people are trying to tweet around him, what are the messages they're trying to get him to gravitate too and you can see what he responds to. luckily he doesn't respond that often. this is unique that he would respond to a random person. but in you're a foreign government, if i was a foreign government and i wanted to influence the united states, i would take this free, cost effective method, just do the basic analytics of it and you get a window into his mind and how to influence him. >> look, any time we've had a new technology, a new means of making personal contact with somebody, not far behind are the scammers, whether it's -- we've had telephone scams, door-to-door scams, now twitter scams. but there's something about social media here.
how much of what we're reading is real and how much is bot generated right now? how much of twitter's traffic is bottish? >> twitter doesn't actually say, and i think part of it is twitter is in a tough spot. if they come forward and say this many -- this percentage of all twitter accounts are not real, it would cause their stock to plummet. you would not have the user base that everybody thinks. but in terms of that, i think probably 20% to 30% is my opinion, my estimate of it, are really just manufactured, false accounts, propaganda. when we talk about bot activity, i've come through the russian influence angle. but the russians are even the largest player in this. >> it's commercial thing, right? isn't this legal? if you want to launch a new shoe, you're lonzo ball, and you're lonzo ball's dad and you want to launch a new shoe, you want to create the idea that it has a lot of excitement around
it. can you buy commercial bots? >> yes. and that's part of the problem. advertising is about replication, it's about volume. the best way to do that is to use automated bots to replicate what you want or want to sell. the problem is how you regulate political interference or foreign interference or disinformation or misinformation, it insites panic. this is the equivalent of yelling fire in a movie theater. we've seen tremendous reactions. when the a.p. twitter account was hacked and taken over, we saw the stock market plunge 600. now we're talking about elections being influenced by the distribution of fake news, which twitter is a valuable tool for, because it can spread so widely and so quickly. even if it's reputed doesn't mean everybody realizes it's been proven force. >> say you're the white house
director of social media and you want to make sure the president isn't scammed by a bot again, what do you do? is there something you can do to protect yourself from it short of never retweeting anybody? >> not really. if you're going to sit and consume that information, you're going to be exposed to it. and there's going to be bots, political, people hike this that are trying to sell products using automated bots and foreign influence, as well. the best answer for the president is to close that account down. that's the only way we can protect him and our country from this sort of misinformation being spread in the online environment. >> wow. i don't thi i get what you're saying there. i don't think he will ever close that account down, but it's a window into his psyche and a vulnerability for our country. clint watts, national security analyst for msnbc, former fbi
agent. appreciate you coming on and sharing your expertise. for those wondering if i would get lonzo ball into a segment about russian hacking, i did it. just ahead, why one man is apologizing for all your password problems. ♪ ♪ ♪ he's happy.t's with him? your family's finally eating vegetables thanks to our birds eye voila skillet meals. and they only take 15 minutes to make. ahh! birds eye voila so veggie good
has ruled part of your life for roughly the last 15 years. nist special publication was an eight-page primer on how to write your computer passwords. it was written in 2003 by a man named bill burr, who advised steps we're all familiar with. use an upper case letter. add a number. throw in a special character like a question mark , and chane your password every 90 days. at this company, it's every 90 minutes. but what does he say now? the retired bill burr said, much of what i did i now regret. turns out making small changes doesn't trip up hackers. they figure out what you're doing. what's more, and this you know already, it makes you harder for you to remember what your password is. experts say a more fail safe practice would be to put four words together.
like this one, it would take about three days to crack. but a four-word password like this one, correct horse battery staple would take 550 years to crack. that's interesting. mr. burr is 72 years old now. would you take advice from your 72-year-old parent on computers? i'm kidding on that. sort of. we'll be right back. definitely not the traffic. excuse me, doctor... the genomic data came in. thank you. you can do that kind of analysis? yeah, watson. i can quickly analyze millions of clinical and scientific reports to help you tailor treatment options for the patient's genomic profile. you can do that? even way out here? yes. even way out here.
ykeep you sidelined.ng even way out here? that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you. alzheimer's disease the fi is out there.survive and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen
by funding scientific breakthroughs, advancing public policy, and providing local support to those living with the disease and their caregivers. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight. my panel is back. since we last spoke, we have heard from dianne feinstein and john mccain. not on the threat from north korea. both on the words that the president chose to use, and you might not be surprised. we have john mccain's statement up here. he says --
>> john mccain says the world is going to view it as a red line. dianne feinstein, very critical of the rhetoric as well and says -- >> she want >> this is what the president should be saying. this is what grownups say. this is what people say when it's a complicated, nuanced situation. one would think that would come from the white house but it's coming from the congress. thank goodness we have sanity still here in washington.
>> it would be perfect for the president to say, this strategy has failed by my three predecessors. >> bill clinton presented an >> presented kim jong-un's father with that. the president is doing things for a lot of different reasons. i mean, part of this, you got to look at this from, i hate to bring this up, but you have to view this from the context of where his head is this week. we have revelations about mueller and he's been incredibly sensitive to that he's taking this 17-day vacation. people are taking instagram pictures of him on the golf course that he's working. he can't argue now that he's working. there's a lot that goes into what this guy says that doesn't have to do with the matter at hand. >> i want to focus on john mccain's statement the most. he viewed it as a red line statement. i assume the president is going
to say, no, no. nobody wants to get in red line mess again after what happened with president obama's red line, fair? >> fair. >> or assume. >> i would assume. it's not a comfortable position to be in. the best to hope for is he didn't mean it. the best we can hope for is the next time north korea threatens him there's not going to be fire and fury. >> this gets into the challenge of why north korea is here is they have not believed any threat the world has made. >> this is why if that was not what he was supposed to say, that's why he would say it. >> technically we're still at war with -- as i understand the mentality, they think we can invade them at any minute. >> we still will need a resolution in congress. >> my point is that's not what
they are thinking. >> that's the way they think? >> exactly. the leader of the free world should understand that. >> it's interesting. there's been this mind set of kim juong-un is irrational. >> he isn't. >> how about we can throw hussein in there that you can say the israelis took care of that mess back in the early '80s. >> evil ain't crazy. >> we always want to believe it is crazy. >> what we couldn't get our head wrapped around, what we lost a lot of blood and treasure on is there notion hussein was lying about having weapons he turned out no to have.
he wanted to sell people on the notion that he was. >> it's racial. >> this regime is the most egregious in the world. they are harvesting their own people. the only way resource they have are nuclear weapons. he's playing the single card that has been dealt. >> he's using south korea as a human shields. >> japan too. >> part of the complication for the united states is here we know the south koreans you're on the front lines. they don't like it at all. >> where you can count on the people we thought were evil would reign it in.
i think those days, that's not the time we're living in. >> the question is when the president says he's on vacation, will he sit down with his advisors, with them and listen to what they have to say. i recognize this is very hard. i recognize he has no good options but to try to put toothpaste in the tube because he skiquirted it throughout and it's pretty bad. >> we're talking about military options and it's not the only thing that's worked. >> that's what caused today's reaction but the smart rational thing to do is get back into the community to take the next step diplomatically. >> there's never been any tube on his toothpaste. it's just tooth past. >> still visualizing this in my
head. is it a pile in the bathtub. >> forget red lines. he could come out with something in two hours that could be completely opposed to what he just said. >> there's something about when he read the statement he was glancing at some notes. there was some agreed upon statement. the question is was that word for word or was it a sentiment to you need to rattle china's cage on this one. this is how he did it. i guess we'll find out in the pages of the new york times in a few hours. thank you. after the break, what we think we know about the starting nine on the supreme court. hello, discover card.
hi. can you tell me about these new social security alerts i keep hearing about? sure, just sign up online. then we'll alert you if we find your social security number on any one of thousands of risky websites. wow. that's cool. how much is it? oh, it's free if you have a discover card. i like free! yeah, we just want you to be in the know. ooh. hey! sushi. ugh. i smell it! you're making me... yeah, being in the know is a good thing. know if your social security number is found on risky sites. free from discover. i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.
in case you missed it, we may be out of what we're dubbing the supreme court retirement red zone. supreme court justices are appointed to life, but they don't have to serve that long. the justices average age of retirement is about 79 years old. two current justices are past that mark. justice prior turned 79. there was a lot of speculation that justice kennedy was going to step down after nearly 30 years on the bench. the high courts final workday until fall came and went in june without a retirement announcement from kennedy. justices can announce their retirements when ever they want. we're not saying they won't.
you have to go back more than 40 years to find a justice who announced a retirement later than july. ten of then all announced their retirements in late spring or early summer. none after july. if history is a guide, make up of the supreme court isn't going to be changing for the next term. that's all for tonight. the beat with ari melber starts now. good evening. do i tell people the secret, you're in washington today? >> tell them the secret. thank you. great to be here. we have some other breaking news coming in to our news room. this new report that trump replayed private communications to bob mueller. this is usual. the report is trump has relayed private messages with mueller through his lawyer and that part is not in dispute. a lawyer confirming aspec