wa. theodore, mom, dad, big brother, big sister, are doing great. a big congratulations to the entire family. well done, mom. that's all for tonight. we'll be back tomorrow with more "meet the press" daily. >> good evening. i don't know if you know what goes on when you are not here on "meet the press" daily. but katy and i have these awkward tosses. >> but ours are better, right? >> well, hey, it's "meet the press" daily with chuck todd. i'm hoping theodore is into silence. if she brings theodore, we can do even longer pre verbal tosses. >> i'm with you. i think theodore should do all the tosses. >> theodore is the most popular person for good reason at msnbc today. >> i love it. teddy, that kid is going to be something. he's got the look. he's already got the look.

i join you in our congratulations to the whole family. we're covering a lot of developing stories. what some are calling the bernie effect. senator sanders crushing the numbers and taking it directly to fox news as democrats are exploring many options for 2020. i have that for you later tonight. and brand new action in the roger stone case. and we get to speak to this person you see on your screen. the swamp creature who trolled. we'll get to into the fun of and it why it matters. if you know anything about "the beat," you know i am excited with a swamp creature interview later in the hour. i begin with big news. the trump doj has unaccording even more intrigue with its somewhat unusual announcement of a day. thursday. that the report will come out. in two days. and trump staffers are now reportedly increasingly on wedge the time line set by their own

justice department. especially because if there are not massive redactions, the report will expose them as the source of damaging information about their boss, president trump. one former official telling msnbc, they're worried the wrath will follow. another casting the white house as on edge with, quote, breakdown level anxiety. others getting proactive apparently asking the justice department whether or not their own names will be redacted thursday, and reportedly getting no answer. here is a fear of retribution and it is bigger than donald trump. this is common in politics. but think about it like this. mueller interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. according to barr's own letter. we've seen hundreds and hundreds of letters about donald trump and the mueller probe over the last 22 months but virtually all of them were based on anonymous sources. so we usually didn't know who was talking. here on "the beat," tremendous tied to draw on firsthand accounts whenever possible.

they were limit by people who were willing to talk on the record to come on television. to put their names on their accounts. we learned things from them will whatever you think of them, those people, those sources, were the exception because as a mathematical matter, we can tell you most, the ma rt jo of the 500 or so other witnesses did not go on the record. they stayed anonymous, other than what they told mueller. and they apparently hoped to keep that it way. they are now on pins and needles, at least until thursday, waiting to see if barr's redaction there's spare them, keeping them anonymous or will expose them. these people, many of whoof whom have worked for or with donald trump, they know he has a longstanding obsession with loyalty. >> if given the opportunity, i would get even with people who were disloyal to me. >> how do you define that? >> they didn't come to my aid. maybe i'm loyal to a fall. i'm so loyal that when somebody is lightly dislight to me i look

on it as a great act of horror. >> what a way with words. >> trump's new ag, mr. barr, he knows all about this. he was spotted on his way to work when the doj signaled that it is on pace. rudolph giuliani is offering new details what they're calling a 34 or five-page counter report that they're prepared to drop and he said it is a novel. tim tim, the implication is that being a novel is a bad thing. other trump lawyers on bank records, forcing deutsch bank to hand over documents. and he may not have the ability to keep these records hidden. i am joined by by two journalists. he has been reporting on trump's

controversial history with this very bank. thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> we had the benefit of your reporting last night by known about this story broke. this is one of the stories that many people have been interested in. you've been all over the lead-up. walk us through why this is happening now. >> the reason everyone is excited with this is that donald trump has been relying on deutsche bank for many decades as the lone bank that is willing to finance him. therefore they hold his secrets. tax returns, detailed records about his companies, his family's finances,ering. this is kind of the vault in which his financial secrets currently sit. >> i read that he's worth billions of dollars. why he would only be depend yen on a single bank? >> that's a good question. ? >> it is confusing. many people who actually have

billions don't. >> in fairness to trump and the deutsche bank, this is business model. why use your own money when you can use someone else's just as easily. >> i mean that he is relying on a single bank. >> right. it reflects that there are no other banks willing to do business with him because he keeps defaulting on loans. >> so in a way, the strange thing is not that only one bank will do business with him. the question why will only this one do it? he has a string of business failures, and yet this one bank that has been involved in a lot of other sketchy behavior, that has been implicated in money laundering, why are they willing to go out a limb for somebody, particularly before he was president, had very little to recommend him to any sort of legitimate business. >> that goes back to what you and your team have been doing in your reporting.

not all of our viewers may recognize your face. they will recognize the work you've been doing. which i'm going to read from. we've all been hearing about this reporting. i think it is important. mr. trump, you write, told deutsche bank his net worth was about $3 billion. bank employees concluded he was worth $788 million. a big potentially legally significant difference. and you report one senior bank person said he should be avo avoided. you go on to say that nonetheless, deutsche bank agreed on lend him more than $500 million. >> yes. so the bank overlooked, deliberately overlooked one red flag after another. so determined to do business in the united states. it boils down to greed. they were hungrier for profits and more big to accept risks than any other bank and they're now paying the price for that

with all the scrutiny. >> and one thing that comes forward, when you go back far enough, neither the bank nor the people in mr. trump's orbit, expect that he would later become president of the united states and that would bring on this extra scrutiny. regulatory and otherwise. michael cohen in his now rather famous testimony talked about this. take a look. >> to your knowledge, did the president ever provide inflated assets to a bank in order to help him obtain a loan? >> these documents and others were provided to deutsche bank in one occasion that i was with him. or attempt on obtain money so we could pay. >> that's why these forensic dives into trump's finances,

which the democrats are trying to do from all different angles. on tax returns, with deutsche bank. there is some unprecedented opacity with his financial situation, ooze where he's getting his money from, and it should be considered intolerable. there is a reason why this has never been allowed to happen in this country before. >> i want to ask you something that we've talked about here. we try to be very careful. part of what you exposed already, from your own primary reporting, that even the bank knew better and had reason not to go forward. that looks bad. then there's stuff we don't know. we don't know, as i understand it, what has happened to the debt that deutsche bank holds against donald trump, correct? in your reporting and given the congressional oversight issues, having this much debt. is it possible? is there a concern that some

other actor, entity or government connected entity would try to buy up this debt to have leverage over the sitting president? >> i wouldn't say concern. i think there's curiosity. i think it is part of what congress is looking to understand better. and i'm wrag book on this topic. i've spent over a year digging into this. i haven't found any evidence that is the case. i do not possess subpoena power. >> have you looked into getting it? >> i wishful. >> could you run for d.a. that could be an easier job. >> there are a lot of people with subpoena power that are demanding documents. >> this is the part of my job, we're supposed to sit here and talk about these things carefully and act in an orderly and professional manner. isn't it completely bonkers that we're well into this administration, two years in, and that it is an open question? i'm not saying the president in

this issue did something wrong. i'm just talking about, as a nation that is supposed to run well, as a nuclear powered country, that you can have this big a loophole. the hole in the death star if writ way bigger. we read about it and about all the things other countries do, wi to try to disrupt the united states. wouldn't buying sovereign debt be an obvious move? i don't know what is obvious these days. this whole situation bonkers. it is crazy that i'm talking about deutsche bank on tv and people care about this. i've been talking about it for years. >> you're used to being in the boring corner. myself as well. >> finally, to talk that this big german bank that no one cares about. >> if i'm talking about the emoluments clause, cool, i don't want to talk to you about it.

>> yes. both of you stay with me. for the bonkers aspect, we're bringing in our long time bonkers corn. only a podcast mike could host. how are you? >> we're okay. >> you're not here as the deutsche bank expert, or "the new york times" journalist. i've got two of those. walk us through sheer broader political cultural moment we're in. the democrat subpoena power, and the other checks donald trump can or can't cash, appear to be catching up with him in congress in oversight. >> i was talking to representative bill about an hour ago. and emyeah. we want to see even the redacted mueller report. he keeps talking about deutsche bank. he keeps talking about the tax returns. and he says it always comes back to the same question. what is he trying to hide? what does he not want us to

know? that's what david and michelle are talking about. the wisdom on this goes back to, you'll appreciate this. drake. you win some, you lose something. as long as the income is income. >> didn't trump also say there's nothing mutual about my funds? >> yeah. but it doesn't really work that way in the white house. >> are we having a drizzy-off? >> no. you win those. >> you know what? when reporters like this, whose work is like, what they're really talking about is the truth. and this guy's opponent isn't the fake news media and it is not bernie or beto or mayor pete b. it is the truthful he's like colonel jessup at the end of "a few good men."

it's not that we can't handle the truth. he just doesn't want to know truthful. >> isn't it like, the truth, every time we've gone into the booth -- look. we've gone to "a few good men." a white house on edge going into thursday's moul report and a president who has claimed that the report exonerates him and it is a terrible thing. it can't be both. >> thursday, it sounds like the redacted mueller report might come out. do you have any concerns what it might show? >> it shows that it is a total phony. you just take a long at the conclusion. >> on thursday, it sounds like the redacted mueller report might come out. >> it suppose it is a total phony. i mean, you just look at the conclusion. i heard it will come out on thursday. that's good. and there can't be anything there. because there was no crime. >> mike, how do you assess among the reasonable public, there are

people in their corners. they do still respond to facts. if no one responded, they wouldn't be afraid of the report at all. it is precisely that it worked to a point. this strategy, i wonder what you think as an analyst. trying to attract back to barr's depiction of it. >> yeah. when you look at the reporting, you use that quote about wrath before. it was about white house officials who told the truth. he doesn't want to see that on thursday. allegedly told the truthful he doesn't want to see that on thursday. because all these conflicted democrats on mueller's team, that he's continuing to run down as we move up on thursday. these were the same people who got him to spike the ball over

as soon as his attorney general told him he was in the clear. >> yeah. that was a halftime strategy of sorts. >> and it worked for a day or two. >> i guess trump has won. they really overplayed their hands by investigating all of this incredibly dodgy behavior. and it was kind of objection then that the barr memo was obfuscating at best and possibly outright misleading. you see this degree of panic about this report that none of us have seen but that obviously the white house isn't expecting to be exonerated by what actually comes out. and the story in that msnbc report isn't that people are afraid of having their names reveal. it is that they told about misconduct. >> they're afraid with being revealed as eyewitnesses two things that did happen that made

trump look terrible. >> right. so the things that make him look terrible. they're basically acknowledging, yes, we told him about the terrible things we saw. we're worried that our names will be attached to it. >> my thanks to each of you. >> coming up, this surge and how democrats are debating their options and demographics. reporting on how roger stone may have seen some of mueller's evidence, including secret grand jury materials that no one else has seen. that's a story you'll only find on "the beat." how i will speak to the infamous swamp creature activist who put a focus on ethics. that official now under investigation. that's all tonight. you're watching "the beat" on

msnbc. g "the beat" on msnbc. the exercise. the fiber. month after month, and i still have belly pain and recurring constipation. so i asked my doctor what else i could do, and i said yesss to linzess. linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation or chronic constipation. linzess is not a laxative, it works differently. it helps relieve belly pain and lets you have more frequent and complete bowel movements. do not give linzess to children less than 6, and it should not be given to children 6 to less than 18, it may harm them. do not take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe, stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach area pain, and swelling. i'm still doing it all. the water. the exercise. the fiber. and i said yesss to linzess for help with belly pain and recurring constipation. ask your doctor.

what do all these people have in common, limu?oug [ paper rustling ] exactly, nothing. they're completely different people, that's why they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual. they'll only pay for what they need! [ gargling ] [ coins hitting the desk ] yes, and they could save a ton. you've done it again, limu. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i felt i couldn't be at my best wifor my family. c, in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment.

tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness. with hep c behind me, i feel free... ...fearless... ...and there's no looking back, because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret.

it is early to handicap the democratic presidential primary. the arrival of the first quarterly filings this week does show some of whoo is breaking out in the democratic field. among top five are large hauls from warren, o'rourke and.

about 900,000 donations of about $20 each. sanders released his tax returns and becoming the first to do a fox news town hall. the audience was polled on his medicare proposal. >> a lot of democrats in it. it has republicans, independents, democratic socialists, conservatives. i want to ask the audience a question if you can raise your hand here. how many people get their insurance from work? private insurance right now? how many get it from private insurance? okay. of those, how many are willing to transition to what the senator says, a government-run system? >> some cheers and whoever was there in the room. sanders sparring with those fox

news hosts over his policies, including a proposed wealth tax. >> would you be willing to pay 52% on the money that you made? you can volunteer. >> you can volunteer, too. >> but you suggested that's what everybody in your bracket should do. >> why don't you? you make more money than i do. >> i didn't suggest a wealth tax. >> and she's not running for president. >> sanders spent most of his career outside the party and it is beginning to dawn on some party leaders that he can't win. the "new york times" saying growing alarm among some democrats about a 70 something at a time from outside the party structure, immune to intimidation or incentive, an unwaivering base. people underestimate the possibility of sanders becoming the nominee at their own peril. what does sanders campaign think about this new "times" piece?

they're already fundraising off it with the campaign manager emailing, the democratic establishment is terrified of our movement, as they should be. with this early stage of the race, most poes, i can tell you, are useless. they really show only name recognition. but many believe fundraising should not decide who the nominee is. that makes sense. what you see on the screen does show who some grassroots activists are leaning toward and who will have the funds to compete in the long race. by metric, harris and sanders are emerging in a class by themselves and "the new york times" reporting that sanders' breakaway success does have democrats nervous. if the top democrats are embracing policies, higher taxes, free college, why should they be afraid of bernie sanders anyway? joining me to get into the big political fight that's an placing washington.

professor at harvard's kennedy school of government. and founder of the progressive change campaign committee which has pushed the democratic party on economic and other issues. thanks to both of you for joining me. >> happy to be here. >> what do you think of the way this is going down and a "times" article that is clearly tapping into energy on both sides of bernie right now? >> so to be sure, this is to be expected. bernie sanders was incredibly popular the last time around. 2016. he's maintained that momentum. his supporters represent an important part of the party, a part that is necessary to win in 2020. but really, what we're seeing play out is the ideological differences amongst the various wings of the party. so it is necessary to do it now. it is necessary to do in it detailed fashion. because this is the kind of thing that will determine what goes into 2020.

what goes into the general election. and really, who is strong enough to go up against trump? and realistically, that's what the base cares about. they care about who is the candidate who is strong enough to beat trump? it is not about ideology, necessarily name recognition. that is important. but it is about who has the capacity to beat donald trump in the long term and the long game? >> yeah. i agree with that last point. i am one of many who supports elizabeth warren thinking she is the most electable democrat we can nominate. but it is clear that bernie sanders is the front-runner at this point and he absolutely crushed it last notice on fox. part of why he is able to exceed expectations so much is that we have a rather broken conventional wisdom in d.c. that doesn't understand that bold transformational ideas like medicare for all are super popular with republican, independent, and democratic voters. it is bless left versus right and more about the bottom versus

the elites at the top. and last night, one of the most compelling moments for me was when bernie sanders named the villains. the insurance companies and big pharma but also the democratic and the republican establishment and none of those people were popular with that crowd. >> you say that and sanders and warren are clearly two people with a record of these kinds of progressive economic achievements. at a time when you're up against the trump juggernaut in the democratic party. when you look at that and then you look at what sanders is doing, clearly right now, even as people perceive him as the front-runner. he's not leaning into being the democratic front-runner. he's leaning in, and i'm going to read from this email tonight from his campaign manager. i think you know from progressive circles saying, look, the democratic establish r ment. they're terrified of our

campaign as they should be. what do you think of that message and that's different from warren and most other democrats who might be similar ideologically. >> well, ren and bernie sanders are in a class by themselves when it comes to bold transformational structural ideas. but i don't think it is a bad political strategy at all to bash the establishment. i'm co-founder and they don't love the establishment. not many love it, period. >> that gets overwhelmed by some of the other candidates. trump clearly head to the antipathy toward the republican establishment. i think what adams is doing, what sanders is betting on, they're doing it on the left as well. >> there is a notion that bernie sanders and to some sentence, elizabeth warren and a few of

the candidates are running as outsiders. they are running as anti-establishment characters and candidates. and we saw some similar things. not just with trump but also barack obama in 2008 where he ran as an outsider candidate. as the candidate who was going to hold washington accountable. the candidate who vote against the iraq war. the war in iraq. so we see a lot of these resurgen and pivotal in this moment. at the same time, we also know that the other front-runner, the person who has been unnamed here, is the person who hand yet declared and that's joe biden. so there are a lot of reasons why there might be support around joe biden in this moment. including the fact there is a pretty large centrist wing or moderate wing of the democratic party that supports someone like biden. so that will be interesting to play out over time. >> i see you disagreeing, a

pepping disagreement for next time. we welcome you here. the question of whethis a big o. when we come back, we've got in our rundown, the swamp creature on "the beat." first, action in this roger stone case today with a big question when we come back in 30 seconds. does he already have part of mueller's evidence? stay with us mueller's evidence stay with us it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there?

. the trump justice department says the redacted mueller report is coming thursday. democrats are asking for the full report. the news poses a related question. could roger stone have part of it? several signs point to yes which we can look at a flurry of developments, super interesting happening in the stone case. today two of mueller's prosecutors formally withdrawing from supporting roger stone. another indication since mueller finished his probe. and he his taemt are still reportedly going into the doj to pitch in. that's why we have the early morning photos. others like in the stone case, mueller handing the whole thing off to d.c. prosecutors. for his part, roger stone just filed six motions. and here's one area where stone's legal strategy overlaps with house democrats. he wants the entire mueller

report. a new filing argues that as a development, he has a quote, right to review the mueller report and they must be allowed to review it in its entirety. it contains the evidence and conclusions on matters essential to stone's defense some of the might want to dismiss this as another tactic. but a defendant has a valid claim to get at least some evidence that would be at issue in the report if it helps stone's defense. and this is not a hypothetical which brings nevme to the next reporting. stone's team has some evidence that would be secret. here's another one. citing grand jury testimony and look at the reference specifically citing testimony to the grand jury, transcript page 44 with exact lines listed. why am i showing you that? that's a choo that roger stone's team may already have some mueller evidence by virtue of

stone being defendant. that would be evidence that we don't think congress has even seen yet. within all this action stone is asking judge amy berman jackson to consider whether he was also selectively prutd for his support of trump. noting another witness who noted lying to mueller was not even charged. i can tell you judge jackson is responding stating that stone's team must specify by thursday where his claim of selective prosecution seeks the production of any information other than the report. so that's a lot. and it is something you may not have heard about because it's news. the headlines here are bill barr and jerry nadler are not the only players considering court clashes over the full unredacted moul report. roger stone wants it too. and judge jackson may be ruling on that issue as well before this whole thing is over. joining me now to get into this, former federal prosecutors,

they've been studying these filings. good to see both of you. >> thanks for having me. when you look at roger stone's filings, what everyone thinks of him, he appears to have some evidence and makes the point that he's entitled to. >> so the interesting thing about this is that federal discovery is a pretty cut and dry issue. there is a real rule 16 of the rules that says what a defendant is entitled to if he or she makes a request. and then there's some additional provisions. you get, for instance, evidence that tends to prove your innocence. so stone has filed these motions. they really won't expand the universe of discovery he's entitled to. >> and that discovery as we know is included in what people see on the screen. the only reason we know what his arrest looks like. he got that video and then leaked to it sinclair. right? he has been, he's under a gag order now. he has been someone who has been strategic, if you want to call it that, or assertive in how he

uses this stuff. i wonder if you can walk us through why he would appear, according to the filing, to have mueller grand jury evidence. everyone has been hearing barr saying you'll never see any of it. stone has some of it. for viewers who are fans of making a murder, they are familiar with this. you do get some stuff. take look at their explanation of the so-called brady material. >> in a nut shell, i have to undermine confidence in his verdict. the way i undermine confidence is i find new evidence that shows that the verdict wasn't correct. i showed that there were violations of his constitutional rights, that there was exculpatory evidence that was concealed by the constitution. what we called brady violations. >> what she's referring to is that you can get a whole, potentially, a whole murder case overturned that they don't give you the so-called exculpatory

evidence. what does it tell that you according to this finding, they may have some of it. >> i think it tells that you federal prosecutors likes in virtually every case, were careful to comply with the requirements of the rules. what is referenced in that clip is material that a defense lawyer could use to show had miss client is inning. for the obvious reasons, they require that it is provided to defendants before they go to trial so they have that opportunity. that's what is at stake here. it appears with this testimony that stone has been given evidence or perhaps other evidence that they had with them. >> your views of all this. >> as i told my young baby prosecutors, there are four parts of the federal criminal world of discovery. there's brady which is exculpatory information. there's giglio, information about government witnesses, rule 16, and then there is this thing

called jinx. a statement of a witness called by the government. so there is probably two ways at least that mr. stone's attorneys got this information. one, the indictment was returned in january of this year. it's very possible that under criminal procedure 16, there has been a sealed protective order that allows the government to provide early discovery to mr. stone's attorneys, and the other way is this. before the indictment was returned, and this is what i used to do. whenever i had a target and i'm trying to negotiate a pre indictment plea, i would get court permission to disclose grand jury information about witnesses against my target because i did have a drug dealer one time that he was not going to plead guilty until he actually saw -- >> yeah. >> yeah. >> what do you think about the wider debate about this mueller report and the idea that stone is saying, maybe even before

jerry nadler, he should get whole thing. >> well, jerry nadler should get the whole report, full monte, unredacted. it could be sealed and redacted. so it is funny that roger stone's interests and nadler's interests, and the house tension committee, they have a convergence of a common goal. it could have for roger stone information and documents that could assist him in his defense. now, the whole -- >> i don't want to get too wonky -- >> i do. >> the idea that mr. stone may argue that to the extent he made misstatements, they were not material, that could relate to the larger case in the report, no? >> absolutely. so i'm not a big fan of roger stone but he has defense attorneys who are doing the

right thing and that motion for the full report, he won't get the full report. but that report may have information that falls into those four categories that i just talked about. that's a big deal. and as joy will tell you, appellate courts don't like violations of criminal discovery. >> and as you alluded to it, they may have given over everything that stone is entitled to. the assistance of this report, particularly if barr hands over something that is less than if you have on thursday, leaves more than one venue to discuss the wider report which is a fascinating addition we wanted to report out tonight. and we couldn't have done it without our experts. thank you to both of you. appreciate it. up ahead, a lot more. explosive reporting on facebook, exploiting private information, all despite mr. zuckerberg's famous denials.

first, the swamp creature. why do salads settle on the same 5 things? there's thousands of ingredients out there. the freshest stuff this planet can grow. not buzzword fresh. but, actually fresh-fresh. fresh. at panera, we hand-pick berries at peak-season.

use creamy avocado. cage-free eggs. and a dressing fit for a goddess. oh and every ingredient is 100% clean. come taste what a salad should be. and for your next event big or small, try panera catering. panera. food as it should be. you have 4.3 minutes this time,to yourself.rn. this calls for a taste of cheesecake. philadelphia cheesecake cups. rich, creamy cheesecake with real strawberries. find them with the refrigerated desserts.

the news that some are calling revenge of the swamp creature. an activist affiliated with green peace at the confirmation hearing for trump interior secretary nominee david bern hart. the whole point was to draw attention to his ties, to energy lobbyists and raise the question whether the swamp was really dranld. i can tell you that the person in that mask from the hearing joins me momentarily. she was the swamp createture entire time. tonight, there's news because it is the first week running interior cynentir interior since being confirmed and there is already a probe looking into ethics violations. remember, they were looking into the last person.

i'm joined now by activists from green peace usa, irene kim. >> thanks for having me. i'm great. >> we'll put up on the screen what you were to. it was a political cultural moment. what was this about? did you achieve your goals? >> this was about showing absurdity to this event that was happening with our senate. it was to let our senators knows that everyone is watching you and letting you know that this is a crazy situation. senator bernhart has no place as secretary of the interior. i think we did set out what we were trying to do. even more so because it went so voir. so viral. >> and walk us through that. is this a cultural and artistic

thing? how much does it matter to you that you were trying to turn or reflect the trump administration's own language, draining the swamp, which may show a bipartisan interest in doing that if you take some of his supporters at their word, and yet your argument seems to be when you look at the interior and other agencies, that it worse than ever. >> right. we really wanted to rif on president trump's favorite saying that he would drain the swamp. we think he is doing the opposite of that. he is bringing in a lot of swampy, swampy people who have no place being in office. i think this was an activist moment. it was more of a professional troll moment. there are people putting their bodies on the line and it was an honor to be part of the resistance. >> when we look at that mask, who are we supposed to see? an active character? some see hints of jar-jar there.

>> there has been a lot of online debate. these are supposed the represent swamp mast here's are a phaneuf david bernhardt who are here to support his fellow swamp monsters. and it is a way to show solidarity. >> do you travel with the mask? >> no. i have had it on the metro and no one has stopped me, thankfully. >> do you have it with you? >> i do have it with me. would you like to see it? >> sure. it is your thing. >> my little friend here. a little mouth, some eyes, very cute. >> and what is most satisfying to you? the reception, you call it trolling. trolling is about upsetting your opponents whether or not there is a change of outcome. >> right. we need to be the troll that's we wish to see in the world. folks are out there filled with

moral outrage and indignation. this is a way to show some humor. the only way we'll get through this is by laughing. >> did you apply gandy social activi activism? >> my body was shaking so i had to meditate in there. being really peaceful, nonviolence is always on my mind. >> sure. i think we know one thing. that you hit your mark. a lot of people noticed this. and as up, i think we can learn something. you can be passionate about the serious issues and try to connect or have fun. i think that's great. my thanks to you for coming on the program. my thanks to your swampy, inanimate friends. coming up, mark zuckerberg under fire. we'll explain, next. we'll explain, next. it's best

to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪ means to fight the hardest battle, which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal? it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪ ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. so, you're open all day, that's what 24/7 means, sugar. kind of like how you get 24/7 access to licensed agents with geico. hmm? yeah, you just go online, or give them a call anytime. you don't say. yep. now what will it take to get 24/7 access

to that lemon meringue pie? pie! pie's coming! that's what it takes, baby. geico®. great service from licensed agents, 24/7. i felt i couldn't be at my best wifor my family. c, in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment.

tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness. with hep c behind me, i feel free... ...fearless... ...and there's no looking back, because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret. (gasp) (singsong) budget meeting! sweet. if you compare last quarter to this quarter... various: mmm. it's no wonder everything seems a little better with the creamy taste of philly, made with fresh milk and real cream.

facebook ce o mark zuckerberg you should fire again for treating data like a bargaining chip. an nbc news exclusive. roger was a former mentor to zuckerberg and the author of the book, zucked, baking up to the facebook catastrophe.

specifically what is new about this report and what do you see as important in connection to the critique you have made to the company? >> ari, there are two things that really matter. it's 4,000 pages of documents that were revealed in a case against facebook by a small company that believed that it had lost access to facebook user databased on facebook -- nothing they had done wrong, but facebook changing policies. facebook claimed they were acting to protect privacy of users. they were behaving like a monopoly. they no longer needed small companies to build engagement and they were getting rid of those people. >> do you view this as a business dispute where they are playing hardball or worse or do you view this as something that is wider for anyone who uses facebook or has family or

children who use facebook? >> both are true. it strengthens the case for anti-monopoly action for facebook, google and others. you need to understand this company has systematically treated user data as something to be traded. it did not see a business advantage there. we can be confident that if the company sees it from trading the data, they will do so. there is nothing about this that is comforting from a user point of view. >> how important does this show where the accountability is? it came out of a business dispute and didn't come from congress or regulators. >> it is a leak that is the subject to maintain the privacy of all of these documents. that is correct. congress has yet to engage properly on this stuff and i

think we are pastime for that, but i'm hopeful this will happen. pelosi is focused on this and they have republicans showing interest. everyone knows there is something really, really wrong and they have their work cut out to figure it out. that's why people like you and i are here. >> we have drawn the expertise before. do you have any grateful dead references for this story? >> i just think that i'm going to use a couch of gray and hope for the best. >> every silver lining has a touch gray. the only grateful dead song i believe to ever make the top ten. >> the only one to ever chart nationally. that's why we are always playing in the band. >> he fit in two. i knew you were a dead head. >> your music is one of the great things on television.

i love it. >> no time for encores. we'll be right back. ncores we'll be right back. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? with the chase mobile app, jason wu could pay practically anyone, at any bank, all while putting on a runway show. or, he can make it even easier - (meow) with recurring payments to his cat sitter. and now she's ready for the catwalk. chase. make more of what's yours.

bill's back needed a afvacation from his vacation. an amusement park... so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain. so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move. i like to make my life easy. ( ♪ ) romo mode. (beep) (bang) good luck with that one. yes! that's why i wear skechers slip-ons. they're effortless. just slip them right on and off. skechers slip-ons, with air-cooled memory foam.

you have 4.3 minutes this time,to yourself.rn. this calls for a taste of cheesecake. philadelphia cheesecake cups. rich, creamy cheesecake with real strawberries. find them with the refrigerated desserts. your control. like bedhead. hmmmm. ♪ rub-a-dub ducky... and then...there's national car rental. at national, i'm in total control. i can just skip the counter and choose any car in the aisle i like. so i can rent fast without getting a hair out of place. heeeeey. hey! ah, control. (vo) go national. go like a pro.

♪ every day, visionaries are creating the future. ♪ so, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. ♪ the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. ♪ because the future only happens with people who really know how to deliver it.

>> that does it for me and i will see you back at 6:00 p.m. eastern this week. "hardball" with chris matthews is up next. countdown to mueller. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. with 36 hours until the mueller report gets released, a terrible anxiety inside trump world. those inside the white house are wondering who among them will be outed. who has given evidence against the man in the oval office. nbc news is reporting that current and former white house official who is spoke to pluler's prosecutors are worried that thursday's report will expose them as the source of