they were pretty close. were they not, with hillary clinton? 2%, 3%. they missed it in key states like michigan, pennsylvania, ohio. that s the whole shooting match. nevertheless, when i saw them going frothy on the minnesota, wisconsin, michigan deal, what do we think now? in 2016, the only person to actually call the electoral college right was kellyanne conway who was laughed off the set as she correctly predicted it. my point about these polls is, what happened in the election, the analysis was bad. what i see now is that the questions are bad. they are usually slanted, anti-trump questions, so they don t see the narrative here. this is a divided country. it s close. i think there is a blue edge, but it is way too early to say there s a blue wave. have to be very careful because these polls very rarely put the trump messaging and for testing. they don t ask about sanctuary
pollsters were wrong before the last election. however, on the popular vote, they were pretty close. with a knob, with hillary clinton? 2%, 3%. they missed it in key states like michigan, pennsylvania, ohio. that s the whole shooting match. nevertheless, when i saw them going frothy on the minnesota, wisconsin, michigan deal, what do we think now? in 2016, the only person to action call the electoral college right was kellyanne conway who was left off the set as she correctly predicted it. my point about these pools is, what happened in the auction, the analysis was bad. what i see now is that the questions are bad. they are usually slanted, anti-trump questions, so they don t see the narrative here. this is a divided country. it s close. i think there is a blue edge, but it is way too early to say there s a blue wave. have to be very careful because these polls very rarely put the
fbi official, and a u.s. attorney and msnbc contributor. chuck, let me just start with it s been an extraordinary day for an agent of the fbi. your first impressions. well, not just an agent of the fbi, a current agent of the fbi. very often we resist having folks line folks like pete strzok testify in front of congress. i think what happened today is a good illustration why. this is not about policy or getting to the truth, this is about both sides posturing and trying to score political points and having an active fbi agent in the middle of their shooting match. was peter strzok basically not because the fbi put so many parameters about what he could say and what questions he could answer, was he sort of had his hands tied behind him or he had come across as really not there were times he came across as not being forthcoming.
illegitimate. that s their stated premise. now you have the attorney general who is running the department of justice kind of caught in the middle of this shooting match. it is going to be really interesting to see. my biggest fear is that our institutions take a beating in this, and i ll tell you, we need a good and aggressive fbi that is well respected around the country. so we need to get to the bottom of that pretty quickly. i do believe they need to start finding a conclusion to this russia investigation. it cannot go on forever. it is bad for the office of the presidency. it is certainly turned the house into the house of investigations and i just worry about how the public is perceiving the value of these important american institutions to our democracy. that s also something we should talk about. one thing rod rosenstein has been worried about was that the house republicans were using their oversight over the justice department to get intelligence they would to give back to
to be other things that the north koreans would have to do before we get into a shooting match with the north koreans. most definitely. one of the key things we have to see is either a direct action on the part of the north koreans or the intent, the clear intent to act in a specific way and to target a certain area, such as seoul, such as tokyo, such as the west coast of the united states. if any of those happened, then it would clearly be game on. the other area we have been talking about is guam. if there were to be an attack as the north koreans have threatened against guam, that would have a significant consequence and the united states would absolutely be forced to respond to something like that. yesterday, james clapper, the former director of national intelligence was speaking to anderson last night about this rhetoric, about the temperature rising in this situation. this is the warning he had.