rachel, we will begin with some breaking news from the new york times about "the new york times." they are reporting tonight on what their op-ed piece has done inside the white house. and now apparently they have a suspect list that has been narrowed to 12 in the inquisition is underway. we all knew that new york times reporters would not let this lie just because it was "the new york times" editorial page that broke this story. we knew it was coming. >> "the new york times" reporters are on the case. peter baker is going to join us in a minute as soon as we get to it. >> well done, my friend. thank you. >> we have breaking news tonight from the new york times about "the new york times" and the panic "the new york times" has created within the white house. the times is reporting that the white house has discussed senator rand paul's idea to use polygraph tests on senior officials of the trump administration. here is the times report tonight. senator rand paul of kentucky recommended that the president force members of his administration to take polygraph examinations, and there wa

in "the new york times." wolf, the reaction here is really something. aides are scrambling to figure out who went and wrote an op-ed of this nature. so far, there's been no official response to the white house and a few reporters sitting outside sarah sanders' office behind this door including myself and she said that the white house had no reaction yet and let us know when they did. but it wasn't even clear if they had a chance to read the op-ed because one reporter printed out the op-ed and handed it to some of the officials standing upstairs. now, the president has an event with sheriffs in here in the east room at the white house. he showed up 30 minutes late to that meeting. it's unclear if that's to read the op-ed or if the white house is trying to form a response to this, wolf. clearly, certainly going to be another problem for them to deal with when they already had all of the other issues and the woodward book on the plate. >> truly extraordinary that "the new york times" decided to publish an op-ed

i think the "new york times" should be ashamed. i think who wrote this editorial should be ashamed. >> reporter: the daughter of u.s. ambassador to russia said it wasn't her father. >> my dad works for the administration. >> did you write it? >> i did not write it. my dad did not write it as far as i know. >> reporter: a frustrated press secretary sarah huckabee sanders tweeted a statement calling for speculation to quote stop as she lashed out at the "new york times" posting the paper's phone number. house minority leader nancy pelosi joked it could be a character from clue. >> the vice president was my first thought. i guess by process of elimination we will come down to the butler. >> reporter: officialinis insid the administration have been reading the op-ed for clues writing the president's appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting misguided impulses. pence was denying he wrote the op-ed and uses the road lodestar. >> vigilance and resolve will be our lodestar. >> the presi

more on that bombshell breaking news from "the new york times." deputy attorney general rod rosenstein reportedly discussed invoking the 25th amendment last year to oust president trump. rosenstein already responding to this, calling the "times" article, quote, inaccurate and factually incorrect. i want to bring in laura jarrett. laura, what more are you hearing about this? >> yeah, we call reports like this bombshell pretty regularly, but this one is quite stunning. it depicts the number two official who was running the mueller investigation, deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, just panic stricken just days after former fbi corrector james comey was fired in may of 2017, and according to the reporting from "the new york times," the former deputy director andrew mccabe outlined a series of just incredible conversations with rosenstein during that time, kept contemporaneous notes that are now in the hands of special counsel, including conversations where at least according to this reporting he allegedly raised wearing a wire to record conversat

york times." >> it's very unfair to our country and to the millions of people that voted really for us. they voted for us. [cheers] >> liberal senator elizabeth warren went on the attack. >> if the president of the united states is not able to do his job, then they should invoke the 25th amendment. >> day three of the brett kavanaugh hearings. >> violate this rule. this is probably as close to any moment in my life i am spartan can you say moment. >> spartan can you say didn't want to be identified as spartan can you say because then they would kill him. corey booker doesn't know anything because is he stupid. >> only president in history what a job he has done. by the way we are impeaching him. if it does happen it's your fault you g you didn't go out to vote ♪ don't you ever leave me ♪ leave me alone ♪ leave me alone ♪ steve: it's september the 7th, it is a friday thank goodness. tgif thank goodness it's fox. don't lee me alone. do you know pete hegseth was with us yesterday and now is h

the president also called for potential action against "the new york times." as for "new york times," wolf, they're issuing a statement about the op-ed saying this. take a look. we are confident that the department of justice understands that the first amendment protects all american citizens and not participate in a blatant abuse of government power. the president's threats both underscore why we must safeguard the identity of the writer of the op-ed and serve as a reminder of the importance of free and independent press to the american democracy. it started with the woodward book and now an op-ed. the president coming back here to a stormy night in washington. he's campaigning in south dakota now. spending the weekend here at the white house. wolf? >> jeff, thank you. jeff zeleny at the white house. we also have some new reporting on the attorney general jeff sessions. i want to bring in white house correspondent kaitlan collins. where does the attorney general -- what does he think right now? where does he think he stands as far as the president is concerne

they like to talk down about the "new york times." now, interestingly, they sort of raising the "new york times" as journalistic judgment as something to support them. interesting moment. >> trace: it is interesting. we have drawn parallels. as thursday comes about, what do you expect to see? i only have about 30 seconds. what do you expect to see on thursday? what's your take away. >> my take away it is going to be similar in some ways to the clarence thomas and anita hill. learn 27 years ago. i do think in the end they will turn over most of their questioning on the republican side to a woman lawyer. maybe kelly ayotte as one of your reporters said before. strange they have six female republican senators none of them on the judiciary committee. the democrats have four of their female senators on this committee. you know, it's going to be incredibly tense. every word will be parsed with incredible precision. and then in the end, the country is really going to have just a few days, it looks like, to make up their mind who they believe

"the new york times." they're quoting sources that say that deputy attorney general rod rosenstein discussed secretly recording the president and then trying to invoke the 25th amendment to try to remove him. rosenstein is denying that story. anybody at the white house talking about it? >> during the commercial break there, i picked up the phone and spoke with the white house official and right now, jon, they're not commenting on this at all. for right now. keep in mind this landed on "the new york times" website 30, 45 minutes or so ago? there is a flurry to deal with here at the white house. we have the brett kavanaugh confirmation which is front and center. the dowd story just released from the "wall street journal." i was chatting with neil cavuto on the fox business network earlier this afternoon, jon, about how there was a host of trade news on this day as well. . trump isn't even here at the white house today. it's one of the busiest fridays we've had in awhile. >> jon: it does keep one's head spinn

so if the feeling new york times has an anonymous editorial if you believe that anonymous well i've read it i don't know who wrote it. such as unstable kind well it would almost be tragic comic book to be dealing with life and death issues i find the media's efforts in this regard to undermine this illustration incredibly disturbing this is a warning from someone. hired to work in the white house some anonymous source within the administration probably risks of failing what is stated. america is in unprecedented territory. also coming up tonight the community in india is celebrating in the world's largest democracy gay sex is no longer a crime. in a country homosexuality is not understood by the masses many but legal acceptance is the first step. or we begin the day with a u.s. presidency in crisis unlike any that we have seen in decades yesterday the new york times published an anonymous letter authored by a senior member of the trumpet ministration it is a declaration of intent to preach. check the u.s. presidency from the u.s. president and in a resistance close to us dong or presiden

a york times story after months of attacking the failing "new york times" and fake news and using that as a basis with which to attack the deputy attorney general and ultimately the mueller investigation. it is, at best, quite convenient. >> it's hypocritical, but no different from the original stated reason for removing director comey, which is that he was unfair to hillary clinton. convenience seems so trump consistency over there. i think it's fair to observe. my thanks to matt and gabe. i turn it as promised to congressman ted lu. the house committees are responding. what do you think is significant? >> well, i don't think a lot is significant because in terms of the 25th amendment, people have been talking about that and the white house for a long time. omarosa said it was so routine they had a hashtag for it, tfa. what's alarming is people who didn't think about it. anyone watching this would have thought about it. none of this appeared to have been executed. didn't seem to have taped anything or gone much further with the 25th amendment talks. this would not be enough. if he did

york times". lauren: investors third day of selling in tech sector. cheryl: 8:30 a.m. eastern time taking look at futures right now. negative kickoff right now. s&p is down 4 and a half, nasdaq down 16 and a quarter. lauren: this is how stocks are trading at the hour, mixed bag, cac if paris up and dax is down 28. cheryl: stocks in china edged higher. lauren: elon musk giving wide-ranging interview while smoking pot and drinking whiskey, latest controversial comments from tesla ceo, fbn:am starts right now. ♪ cheryl: 5:01 a.m. in new york. i'm cheryl casone. lauren: tgif, i'm lauren simonetti. cheryl: it's friday, you have me saying pit. lauren: best day of the week. well, president trump slamming "the new york times" and its anonymous op-ed during rally in montana last night. >> for the sake of our national security, "the new york times" should publish his name at once. i think reporters should go and investigate who it is, that would be good. [cheers and applause] lauren: cheryl: i'm sure thei

president trump asking for a favor to the scathing new york times op-ed. >> and a new report suggesting jared and ivanka believe one person is behind it and is, quote, destroying the presidency. details next on "msnbc live." >>> we begin with a live picture of the white house where the search appears to be intensifying for the person behind the scathing new york times op-ed, president trump campaigning last night telling reporters he has a list and jeff sessions is in further neglect if they don't investigate. >> i think it is a national security matter. they should look at it and look at it very strongly and we should find out who it is because why should we live with somebody in the white house who is really subversive in a sense. i could think of four or five, mostly people that either i don't like or respect, but they're there because in some cases they have to be governmentally. meaning they're protected. we have a lot of people that are protected. but i thought of two or three or four people, people that i haven't -- >> do you want to name them? >> no, i don't want to name them. >

and published in collusion with the "new york times." there is so much hatred and resentment over the success of this president that they simply cannot handle it. i have got news for you. it's not going to stop. the haters aren't going anywhere. but if you are a pa patriot andu like the course america is on. just ignore them. get behind this president and vote. yesterday with a full throttle savage attack on the president, barack's message, obstruct and resist. he pontificates about the reality of racial discrimination, slavery and the quote darker aspects of america's story, accusing the * as follows. -- accusing president trump as follows. >> he's capitalizing on fears politicians have been fanning for years. a fear and anger flood our past. judge jeanine: are you kidding? if anyone has stoked racial hatred and divisiveness, it's you and yourself-proclaimed wing man, attorney general eric holder running off to ferguson, attacking all law enforcement. whenever there is a death, even before there is any investigation. in case you don't r

the new york times describes the author as a senior official in the government his claims of spock's control of the sea and of course damning criticism from the president himself. if the failing new york times has an anonymous editorial if you believe a lot of this really gotten us a godless editorial. we're doing a great job the poll numbers are through the roof our poll numbers are great and guess what nobody is going to come close to beating me in twenty twenty because of what we've done trump plates of follow this up with a tweet. does the so-called senior administration official really exist or is it just the failing new york times with another phony source trump asked if the gutless anonymous person does indeed exist the times' must for national security purposes turn him or her over to government once the times has defended its decision to publish the editorial anonymously and while some a scrambling for clues as to the author's identity others want to focus on the message i think we'll be alarming part of it is that there's someone in the white house who now is very afraid th

york times" and washington post, at least part of it then, the new york times has evolved as many of us have noticed so i have a sample story from thursday which is a story about the hurricane and what happened in puerto rico and on the front page of "the new york times" it says, mr. trump has also been busy awarded himself good grades for past hurricanes, then it says always about me president could not restrain himself for long and then it says, the statistic that 3,000 people had died that trump falsely called it a made-up number by democrats out to get him. okay, new york times view of objectivity neutrality, et cetera, seems to have shifted over time, so the question that i want to invite eli and april to talk about and linda you too is whether the bar has moved under the trump administration, should we have an understanding of what it means to be objective, neutral and balance? what's going on here? you want to start and let me point out there was a letter a couple of weeks, letter to editor from "the new york times" from trump supporter, the more you attack president trump the

york times" clearly is -- "the new york times," you believe "the new york times" would not have published it if they had not confirmed it was a senior trump administration official. >> i'm sure that it could be one of a bunch of people. all i can say is i've never heard this before. i'm going to judge the president by the results. and i like what he's doing with judges, what he's doing with the military, what he did with taxes. and that will matter in my world. in my world, when "the new york times" speak, most of us don't listen. nothing against the paper, but it's sort of seen as the voice of the left. >> because the author of this article -- >> because it is. >> -- talks about successes, and you refer to successes of the trump presidency, and according to this senior administration official have come despite, not because of the president's leadership style. >> yeah. >> and this also author says, this president represents a danger to the u.s. and i know you're interested in foreign policy. in public and in private, the author writes, president trump shows a preference for autocrats and

who wrote that article in "the new york times." the reaction you're getting. >> here's the thing, in order for the attorney general to launch an investigation, there has to be a crime and either the president nor anyone else in his administration has pointed to any criminal wrong doing. he can't just open an investigation because the president is embarrassed. as the former u.s. attorney just pointed out, unless there's allegation that someo-- >> the president seems to think the justice department and attorney general, they are there to serve the president's political agenda, other requirements, does he not understand the role of the role of the justice department and attorney general? >> just within the past week, we have another data point, the president's tweet about chris collins and duncan hunter, the two congressmen charged with crimes by the justice department and president trump suggested the justice department should have held off on charging them considering republican's political prospects in the midterm election. so time

and new york times is mailing, if i were not here i believe that "new york times" would not exist. some day -- some day when i am not president, which hopefully will be in about 6 1/2 years from now. "new york times" and cnn, and all of those phony media outlets will be out of, business. there will be nothing to write, nothing of interest. nobody has been what this administration has done. and i agree it is different from an agenda which is much different than ours, and not yours. >> thank you. >> it is about open borders, letting people come into country, about a disafterrer in crime, they don't like donald trump, and i don't like them, because they are dishonest people, remember this also, about the "new york times," when i won they were forced to apologize to their subscribers. they wrote a letter of apology it was first time anybody has done it because they covered the election incorrectly, they have a anonymous eder to thee eddie , meaning gutless, we have done more than anybody every thought possible in -- not even two years, thank you very much. >> we appreciate it. [applaus

i think the new york times, for all of its failings, is a great ethical, responsible newspaper which operatues to a veyr high standard. so it seems really perverse to almost on a daily basis, single out the new york times and say that is fake. it seems to me what trump is trying to do is to say that actually if i if i can convince you that there are no facts in the world, then we can perhaps operate on a different level, which is emotion, and trump is very successful in playing to people's emotions. that is a very dangerous road to go down. 51%, looking at an interesting recent poll, 51% of republican voters, millions of people, now believe the media to be the enemy of the people, rather than an important part of the democracy. more than half of republican supporters polled were not concerned that mr trump's criticism might lead to violent against journalists. how dangerous a world do you think we are entering? i think it is incredible. i said on the board of the committee to protectjournalists in new york and it never occurred to me four years ago that we would be talking about prot

if, when richard nixon told the washington post and the new york times not to publish daniel ellsberg and the pentagon papers, they had taken that attitude and said it is not for us to query the president of the united states, then we would never have known about the pentagon papers and probably never have known about philby and burgess and the british spies because that's what governments always say. they always say listen to us, we are the wise ones and you are jeopardising. so you have to begin by saying that the press has to be independent and has to make its ownjudgement. you can argue that we were irresponsible and should not have published by my problem with blackhurst and that quote was him saying that in any circumstances, if the british state told me not to apologise i would not do it. so over a 20—year span where you, as editor, are dealing with important national security issues frequently, and yourjournalists were bringing to you exposes and revelations and secrets uncovered, can you name me one example where you ultimately took the decision not to publish information t

york times yesterday new york times a russian did american interference in the elections have not been morally equivalent and on the call but of course i don't know who the new target of the because the americans always supported the democrats and tried to leave it the influence of authoritarian governments while russians did the opposite and and they provide the statistics that the us intervened in eighty one elections while the white and russians together with their soviet period in just thirty six i mean can you imagine them seated in their culture waiting you know what are their criteria so there where there is good meddling and there is bad meddling and there is a good bit of that you see in the sprit ludes the star wars yes yes there's a popular me that has been telling the young darth vader attic and don't dare attack i have the high ground that every time i hear us eventual say this we have the moral high ground don't you dare. you we're going to go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion and some real news stay with. with lawmakers manufacture

. >> yes, going back to what you were saying calling the new york times the failing new york times, we have seen this time and time again. when it comes to president trump, he's going to use whatever rhetoric makes sense for him at the time to support his position at the time. it seems his base doesn't worry about it. howard: he's not the only politician is a theys this story in the washington post -- poll situation that says this story in the washington post -- he's not the only politician that says oh the washington post says this. thank you. >>> up next, billionaire basketball owner mark cuban chokes up and apologizes and an overdue apology from jane fonda as well. (music throughout) howard: mark cuban the tech executive who owns the dallas mavericks wants you to know he is sorry. he's one time pal of donald trump who wound up campaigning against him and then said he might run for president in 2020. he agreed to donate 10 million dollars to women's groups following an internal investigation sparked by a "sports illustrated" story that found two decades of sexual harassment and impro

york times is bailing. —— times is failing. if i weren't here, i believe the new york ctimes probably wouldn't even exist. and some day when i am not president, which will hopefully be six and a half years from now, the new york times and cnn and all of these phoney media outlets will be out of business, they will be out of business. there will be nothing to write and nothing of interest. so if the failing new york times has an anonymous editorial, can you believe that? a was editorial. we are doing a greatjob. the poll numbers are through the roof, we are doing great and guess what, no one will come close to beating the in 2020 because of what we have done. —— beating me. let's go to washington now and our correspondent chris buckler. we know what he is saying publicly. what else is he saying? it is a remarkable opinion piece and you have to go through to get a sense of what they are saying. they talk about president trump's impulse being generally anti— trade and antidemocratic and that is important to mention because i

your thoughts about where the new york times is? >> my thoughts, first of all, the new york times would have vetted this very carefully, i don't have any doubts about that. my feeling is yet another example of partisan politics run riot the way i would put it. it's happening everywhere and it's not good for the democracy, i don't think it's good for u.s. security overseas, it can tempt people to think the wrong things about that we have a weak government and i was shocked that the individual in question would not resign and put it out there under his own name. lou: yeah, i wasn't surprised. anyone who would betray the man they work for, the president of the united states, is a delusional ego self-jackass, i don't see any other way to call it. i would think that that person i hope stand up clearly among the top officials to have administration. >> this is not like that you work for a big business and you don't agree with the ceo or something like that. lou: right. national security. >> you work for the united states government and yo

york times." she writes, when there is disagreement, there is a right way and a wrong way to address it. i pick up the phone and call him or meet with him in person. as a former governor, i find it chilling to imagine that a high ranking member of my team would secretly try to thwart my agenda. that is not the american way. it is fundamentally disloyal. former trump campaign advisor george papadopoulos says the campaign was fully aware of his efforts to arrange a meeting between president trump and vladimir putin during the 2016 presidential campaign. >> did anyone discourage you from pursuing that possible summit between trump and putin? >> as far as i remember, after that meeting on march 31st, i actively sought to leverage my contacts with the professor to host a meeting. the campaign was fully aware of what i was doing, including corey lewandowski. i think actually preceding the meeting, sam clovis was telling me excellent work while i was actively discussing with the group and sam that i was

the "new york times" as fake news, the failing "new york times," this story was based on anonymous sources, if he then bought into it and used it as a vehicle to fire rod rosenstein without trying to drill down and get to the bottom of whatever rosenstein may have said, i think everybody would have seen it as the pretext it is. but he has chosen to take an intermediate step and talk to rod rosenstein and i would expect that meeting on thursday will sort of look like okay, what did you say, when did you say it, why did you say it, were you serious or joking. and i'm actually not surprised that the president would want to get to the bottom of that kind of a statement. >> so liz, the issue is that if the president were do anything to try to get rid of rob mueller, as you said there are legalities involved tanld it wo uproar y upro uproarious, but this is more complicated. does the world get up in arms about the president getting rid of rod rosenstein especially in light of reports that he may have done things to diminish the president. >> of course it is not as clear cut as the saturday night

i know a lot of people at the new york times, it isa lot of people at the new york times, it is a serious and ethical news organisation and i would imagine, i can't believe they would boost the status of this person in order to... grab attention. so i'm prepared to believe the new york times, because i believe it is a fine newspaper. but lots of people won't. lots of people will think it is a cheap trick by them and they won't believe this person is as senior as they say. ok, the white house press spokesperson sarah sanders without out a tweet refuting the story. we wa nt to out a tweet refuting the story. we want to show you that. there is in this tweet and statement the phone number of the opinion desk of what is called the failing new york times and she suggests people who don't like the piece should call the new york times. how unhelpful would shah have been to you. i would not have enjoyed that. it is worse than childish. what the trump 5 administration is trying to do is de—legitimise the press and i can't think of a single mainstream politician who has done that in re ce nt polit

york times. digo polÉmica, porque su autor permanece en el anonimato, luego de relatar como un grupo de funcionarios trabaja para tratar de controlar y resistir las acciones de un presidente que describen como amoral y fuera de control. comenzamos con el reporte de pablo gato. pablo: donald trump no tardÓ en. no se sabe si se trata de esta columna o las personas que colaboraron con el libro "miedo". el artÍculo en el new york times va acompaÑado de un dibujo de cuatro personas que intentan que estados unidos no se caiga por el barranco. el funcionario anÓnimo que escribiÓ el artÍculo afirma que lo que dice el libro es cierto. trump afirmÓ que es mentira. " estamos tratando de hacer lo correcto, incluso cuando donald trump no lo hace," afirma la columna. " pensamos que nuestro primer deber es contra este paÍs y el presidente continÚa h actuando de forma insalubre para nuestra repÚblica". >> es muy preocupante ver el desastre que hay dentro de la casa blanca, el caos que hay dentro de la

annoyed at "the new york times" did this. to write an op-ed like this, that has a stature, resign and put your name on it because this is just gossip. this is gossip to me. >> jeff. you come out here. you state your peace. you say your mind. i respect that. right? someone to write a blind op-ed throwing stones at somebody, we don't know. listen. the meetings the person talks about, i don't know where they're taking place. it's malarkey. >> i think ethics is an interesting subject. what i think is more interesting is whether the president of the united states is fit in office. and that's what we're really talking about. and yes, you know -- >> you know what? jeff, there's a method to remove the president. it's called impeachment. >> and another method. there's another method and the author actually addresses it. and let's read that excerpt. quote, given the instability many witnessed there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th amendment which would start a complex process to remove the president and no on

he talked about "the new york times" op-ped. it's interesting, don, before the rally got started he did a staged one-on-one interview with fox & friends where he essentially said that what "the new york times" ran in the form of that op-ped was treason. he called it, quote/unquote, treason. then during this rally a few moments ago, he confessed to the crowd he doesn't know who the hell it is is the way he put it. he seemed to position all this, describe all of this as part of, again, this deep-state conspiracy he believes is conspireing against this administration. here's what he said a few moments ago. >> the latest act of resistance is the op-ped published in the failing "new york times" by an anonymous, really, an anonymous, gutless, coward. you just look. he was -- nobody knows who the hell he is or she, although they put he, but probably that's a little disguise. that means it's she. for the sake of our national security, "the new york times" should publish his name at once. i think their reporters should go and investigate

he talked about "the new york times" on pp-pop-ped. it's interesting, don, before the rally got started he did a staged one-on-one interview with fox & friends where he essentially said that what "the new york times" ran in the form of that op-ped was treason. he called it, quote/unquote, treason. then during this rally a few moments ago, he confessed to the crowd he doesn't know hell it is is the way he put it. he seemed to position all this, describe all of this as part conspiracy he believes is conspireing against this administration. here's what he said a few moments ago. >> the latest act of resistance is the op-ped published in the failing "new york times" by an anonymous, really, an anonymous, gutless, coward. you just look. he was -- nobody knows who the hell he is or she, although they put he, but probably that's a little disguise. that means it's she. for the sake of our national security, "the new york times" should publish his name at once. i think their reporters should go and investigate who it is. that would actually be

"the new york times" isn't failing. if i weren't here, i probably believe "the new york times" wouldn't exist. >> the white house press secretary sent an official response which reads in part, the individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive rather than support the duly elected president of the united states. he is not putting country first put putting himself and his ego ahead of the american people. this coward should do the right thing and resign. let us bring in our leadoff panel on a busier than average wednesday evening. can we agree on that? ashley parker, pulitzer prize winning reporter for "the washington post." robert costa, national reporter for "the washington post." also happens to be moderator of "washington week" on pbs'. richard painter, former ethics lawyer for the bush 43 white house. good evening to all of you. ashley, i'd like to begin by highlighting a brief portion of the biline you shared tonight from "the washington post." the phrase, the sleeper cells have awoken circulated on text message

it's clear democratic staffers were leaking to the "new york times." if you want to leak something, i'm open for business. we all love leaks. but it showed kavanaugh was citing correct supreme court precedent. in the middle of an emotional debate he was being pretty sober and clear headed and that's why the republicans like him. howie: the "new yorker" thought it would be fun to interview steve bannon until he received back lab from liberals in hollywood like jim carrey saying they wouldn't attend. this weekend marks the fifth anniversary of "mediabuzz." i want to thank our loyal audience. check out my podcast. and subscribe at apple itunes, google play, let's continue the conversation on twitter @howardkurtz. i respond on facebook. and post a lot of videos. thanks again on anniversary number five. back next sunday with the these folks, they don't have time to go to the post office they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your comp

they happen to have a "new york times," in this case, willing to go along with it the "new york times" owes us more than somebody anonymously says that. that's huge allegation. >> dana: i remember secretary for a congressman somebody called me and they said they had two sources i'm like right the person who made up the rumor and someone they told. it is a little suspect. >> yes. >> dana: congratulations on the book congressman jason chaffetz. >> thank you. >> dana: a short and smart look three other stories we are following today. the mother of a jogger murdered while run nag popular d.c. neighborhood says she has already forgiven her daughter's killer. a vigil was held last night for 235-year-old martinez who just got engaged last week. evidence that the woman who opened fire at maryland workplace killing three people yesterday was suffering from mental illness. police say mosley shot and killed herself after the rampage. and officials say florence is now blamed for at least 42 deaths in three states. we will have the latest in a live report coming up later in the show. president tru

the "new york times" does know this. but the president making the pivot to blame all of this, anderson, on the "new york times." >> and as much as the president is trying to dismiss bob woodward's book, he does want to though who talked to woodward, right? i used the term "witch-hunt" earlier obviously kind of ironically. but understandably, he wants to know, and it's from his perspective it's absolutely fair that he would want the know who talked to woodward and what they said. >> no question. we've heard the president throw out the term "witch-hunt" so much this year talking about the russia investigation. but the reality is i was talking to administration officials earlier today long before "the new york times" report came out. and they said in fact the president did want to know who talked to woodward and who didn't talk to woodward. he was keeping a list and keeping a careful eye on who was issuing denials, who was not. and, you know, several people were not issuing denials who were mentioned in this book. but there

remember this also about "the new york times." when i won they were forced to apologize to their subscribers. they wrote a letter of apology. it was the first time anybody's ever done it because they covered the election incorrectly. so if the failing "the new york times" has an anonymous editorial -- can you believe it? anonymous. meaning gutless. gutless editorial. we are doing a great job. the poll numbers are through the roof. our poll numbers are great. guess what. nobody's going to come close to beating me in 2020 because of what we have done. we have done more than anybody ever thought possible. it's not even two years. thank you very much. appreciate it. [ applause ] [ cheering ] >> all right. the president had a meeting with sheriffs from around the country

who wrote the "new york times" op-ed? and the bandits wild ride. the unforgettable life of actor burt reynolds who died today at 82 years old. stay with us. sometimes, bipolar i disorder can make you feel unstoppable. ♪ but mania, such as unusual changes in your mood, activity or energy levels, can leave you on shaky ground. help take control by talking to your doctor. ask about vraylar. vraylar is approved for the acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes of bipolar i disorder in adults. clinical studies showed that vraylar reduced overall manic symptoms. vraylar should not be used in elderly patients with dementia due to increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction, or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. high cholesterol and weight gain; high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death; decreased white blood cells, which can be fatal; dizziness upon standing; falls; seizures; impaired

and of "the new york times" is failing. if i weren't here, i believe "the new york times" probably wouldn't even exist. so if the failing "new york times" has an anonymous editorial. can you believe it? anonymous. meaning a gutless editorial. we are doing a great job. >> sean: this is truth. "the new york times," "washington post," conspiracy tv msnbc, the networks. when trump leaves office in six years, they are going to decline precipitously. it will be fun to watch. the president continued his response on twitter and wrote, "does the so-called senior administration official really exist or is it just "the new york times" with another phony source? if the gutless anonymous person does indeed exist the times must for national security purposes turn him or her over to the government at once. e tonight, we are asking the question, who is this person? where does this person work within the administration's potentially hundreds of so-called senior officials in the executive branch? does this person have access to top-secret in

and of "the new york times" is failing. if i weren't here, "the new york times" probably wouldn't even exist. so if the failing "new york times" has an anonymous editorial. can you believe it? anonymous. meaning a gutless editorial. >> this is truth. "the new york times," "washington post" ," and the networks. when trump leaves office in six years, they are going to decline precipitously. it will be fun to watch. the president continued his response on twitter and wrote, "come up does the so-called senior administration official really exist or is it just "the new york times" with another phony source? if the gutless anonymous person does indeed exist the times must for national security purposes turn him or her over to the government at once. tonight, we are asking the question, who is this person? where does this person work within the administration's potentially hundreds of so-called senior officials in the executive branch? does this person have access to top-secret information? is there a national security risk? if he

york times" constantly or near constantly he grew up with the "new york times. he views it as a barometer in some way of how he's doing or how a part of the world views how he's doing he values it but he denounces it at every turn. the fact this appears in the new york times is probably not a coinciden coincidence. it feels like a secret this big as to who this person is who wrote this just can't be kept for long in modern washington given the technology and communications we have, the fro forensics. i think this person knows they will be found out and is prepared to go this is a last hurrah for this person >> if you're going to send an op-ed to the "new york times," it's going to be found out eamon javers, thank you very much >> let's bring in david nelson from bell point emerging asset i will ask you to begin with this you're not a political guy, but we now have a -- i don't want to say a crisis but another leg to an intriguing story in the white house. does that impact the markets at all? >> i think all of us are political animals in one sense or another >> w

i don't buy it because i don't trust the new york times. the characterization is some serious attempt to bug the president like a cosa nostra investigation and invoke the 20th amendment it sounds ridiculous and silly. i don't like the media generally because the way they have behaved. in this case even though it supports my general feeling that rod rosenstein should be fired, i just don't buy. plenty of reasons to fire the sky. john: eric, should rod rosenstein, i keep saying around, should he be fired? >> well, again, as kurt mentioned we don't know if it's true. we have no idea. if it is true, it certainly suggests this is a man that is not emotionally stable during times of pressure and stress and that would react in a way that is lacking in the conduct you have in that position. and that he would expose himself in front of people with those comments. it seems inconsistent with the way he is presented his image today himself but we don't know whether it's true or not. if it's true, it's a serious problem because you're talking about some

"new york times." the failing "new york times," stand up, go ahead. >> i think they're going to endorse me. >> abc, fox. i like fox, i really do. abc, cbs, nbc, "the times," they're all going to endorse me because if they don't, they're going out of business. could you imagine if you didn't have me? >> i know you were pointing to me but i work for pbs' news outlet. >> no, i know that. >> they weren't laughing at me. they were laughing with me. we had fun. the fake news said people laughed. they didn't laugh at me. i've had many false statements against me. sean hannity covered it. >> is it okay if i give it to "the new york times," mr. president? >> can i ask a question since i am from "the new york times" before this gentleman. >> where? >> i'm actually from "the new york times." >> i'll let you do it after he does it. in honor of a paper i once loved. >> "the new york times." >> oh, okay. >> thank you, sir. >> i would have gotten a bad story in "the new york times," but i will anyway, so i guess it d

just said, i'm going to the "new york times." and i don't even want to name a hypothetical person -- >> i don't either. >> the two intriguing questions that i have about this and that i've heard actually discussed is, first, how different is it than "the times" or "the post" or my publication, bloomberg publishing, you know, firsthand accounts from anonymous sources in the midst of a story from people in the white house were talking and offering their views about the president? and the second is, it's not the first time that any of our publications have published stories that we think are newsworthy, but we wonder, why in the world did this person say that or do that or what is their motive, which also seems to be the case here. >> but there's a real circular problem in d.c. right now. part of it is that the trump administration feels so beleaguered, in some cases, we agree, rightly, and obviously, in some cases, wrongly, because of their conspiracy theories. but because of that, there's so much gossip, there's so much speculatio

the "new york times" with a stunning op-ed. describing a resistance within the administration in which the authors and others are working behind the scenes to save the country from the president. quote, we believe our

york times" today. and i just want to get your reaction to any part of that op ed piece as you have read it. >> there has been a lot of discussion about the process, who it is, which you will get to later this evening. why he did it. why he didn't have the courage that john mccain's funeral spoke to us about. but the real point here is the president's behavior. and i said, actually on "morning joe" yesterday that sadly i think he is unfit. and he should step aside. and it make take a 25th amendment to get him to step aside. but will get him to step aside is november's election. i don't think we will have a two-thirds majority in the house or senate, republican controlled. they are all too worried about their own hineys. it will take an election to say the times have changed. we saw that in massachusetts this week and it is time for the kind of urge and use of power that will protect the united states of america. >> ron, i know you have an educated guess about this, too, and we are going to get to that l

it's clear democratic staffers were leaking to the "new york times." if you want to leak something, i'm open for business. we all love leaks. but it showed kavanaugh was citing correct supreme court precedent. in the middle of an emotional debate he was being pretty sober and clear headed and that's why the republicans like him. howie: the "new yorker" thought it would be fun to interview steve bannon until he received back lab from liberals in hollywood like jim carrey saying they wouldn't attend. this weekend marks the fifth anniversary of "mediabuzz." i want to thank our loyal audience. check out my podcast. and subscribe at apple itunes, google play, let's continue the conversation on twitter @howardkurtz. i respond on facebook. and post a lot of videos. thanks again on anniversary number five. back next sunday with the latest buzz. our talk, text and data plans start at $15 a month, no contract. all with nationwide coverage... tracfone. for moments that matter. come hok., babe. nasty nighttime heartburn? try new alka-seltzer pm gummies. the only f