obama will address the nation from the oval office. he's expected to discuss the shooting in san bernardino, california that left 14 people dead. the fight against terrorism and the steps the government is taking to help keep americans safe. this morning attorney general loretta lynch appeared on nbc's meet the press with chuck todd and gave an update on the fbi's terrorism investigation of the san bernardino shooting. >> four days, over 300 interviews, several locations searched. a lot of information being processed, being analyzed, and being gathered, and more to come. so what i would say to people is that this investigation as has already been stated is a marathon and not a sprint but it is one of great concern to the american people and so we're committed to keeping people informed. >> nbc's ron allen is at the white house and joins us now. ron, what are we expecting to hear from president obama tonight? >> well, i think we're expecting to hear the latest on the investigation, more about what secretary attorney general lynch had to say there. i think the american people want to know exactly what happened in san bernardino and what this means to america in the fight in terrorism. the attorney general also said that the threat has changed, saying that essentially this was an attack that we believe was probably carried out by a lone wolf, by an american citizen. it was not planned in a distant place like 9/11 over a long period of time, an elaborate plan like al qaeda planned. this is something different. what the american people want to hear, i believe, is, what is the administration going to do about that. as you know, the president has been widely criticized for being slow, for being reactionary, for underestimating the threat of isis abroad and in the united states. and so i believe now he is under some pressure to step forward with a bold plan, to say exactly what his strategy is, and to essentially defend it because so many people think that it's not working. there's the aspect of it overseas where there have been some 8,000 air strikes against isis, yet they were able to essentially orchestrate that attack in paris. the president has said that they were contained territorially but apparently that is not the case. here at home though again, the threat is -- the concern is this threat of home grown terrorism, something different, a new phase, and it raises all kinds of questions about how the government will respond, how the american people will respond. there are calls for more vigilance in neighborhoods, the muslim community for example. there are questions about privacy and surveillance. mostly we expect the president to try and reassure the american people that the situation is under control but there are a lot of questions that he has to answer. >> thank you to nbc's ron allen in washington d.c. this morning. and a note for our viewers, msnbc will have live coverage of the president's address hosted by chris matthews live tonight at 7:00 p.m. i want to turn to the latest investigation in california. the fbi is trying to track down clues about the shooters in the san bernardino attacks. tashfeen malik and her husband, syed farook. yesterday they raided the home of a man in california. they believe the man was the original buyer of the assault rifles used in the shooting. according to the fbi that man is not a suspect in the attack but was an acquaintance of farook. chris janson is in san bernardino this morning. what more can you tell us about this raid? >> reporter: well, it was really something quite dramatic. what we know is that they used a blow torch to get into enrique marquez' garage and then brought in bomb sniffing dogs. he is said to be so distraught that it is difficult to get information from him and in fact, he has checked into a mental health facility. but he did buy those guns apparently legally in 2011 and 2012 and did have a relationship with the suspect, with the shooter, apparently over cars. they both really liked cars and according to neighbors talked a lot about that and obviously at some point also talked about a mutual interest in guns. so those assault rifles apparently came from him. they also very briefly detained his brother and another family member but apparently they were let go. meantime we know that there was also an interrogation of his mother, and it went on for nine hours according to the "new york times." members of his family say that they absolutely suspected nothing, but as of now the six-month-old baby who had been staying with the mother as well as the parents is still in the custody of social services officials. finally, more coming out of pakistan and the questions about who radicalized who and tashfeen malik and when she may have been radicalized. turns out in 2009 when she went back to school to study pharmacology, she became much more interested in islam even in her studies. reports from there suggest that that's when she started wearing a burqa. not only did she refuse to have photographs taken but collected a series of i.d. cards and got rid of those because they had her photo on it, and one really interesting thing, melissa, while we have heard from friends of his, no one has come forward in this entire community to suggest that they knew tashfeen malik at all or had anything to say about her personally, including his sister i talked to who said she was very shy, very quiet, and very difficult to get to know. melissa? >> it's tough. can i ask one last question. have we learned anything more about the question of motive? obviously you're pointing out that there's lots of different investigations happening in multiple different places, but do we have any sense about motive? >> reporter: over the last 24 hours i talked to a couple of people who are close to this investigation, and they echoed what we heard from the fbi director, melissa. that is the key question here. was she radicalized in pakistan. did she come over here specifically for this purpose. even if that's true, what was the motivating factor. one of the things that is so confounding to people in this investigation is why in that building behind me, why go into the workplace. so these are key questions that have to be answered. obviously to get a handle on this case but also to give them a sense of more information as they look at the possibility of self-radicalization and lone wolf attacks in the future. >> thank you to chris in san bernardino, california. i want to bring in counter-terrorism analyst brian levin in irvin, california. he's a professor at cal state, san bernardino, and the director of the center for the study of hate and extremism. nice to see you this morning. >> thank you for having me. >> i actually want to start by backing up a little bit and talking first about what we might expect to hear from the president. yesterday i had a guest who was talking about the fact that this form of terrorism can't be fought in quite the same way that we typically think about sort of war making. and i'm wondering whether or not the president is going to need to lay out a nuanced argument about how counter-terrorism will look in this case. >> i think that's a great question. 20 years ago i testified before congress about the danger of leaderless resistance or inspired-type terrorism. 20 years later, just several weeks ago, i testified before congress again. this is a different kind of threat. to be sure, isis or daesh is a high arcual organization. if they can get trained fighters into the united states to murder in a spectacular attack, they would. but they have a bifurcated plan and that includes inspiring people on the ground where they are to commit acts of violence that will kill many but not necessarily be as spectacular as, for instance, a 9/11. what we've seen is an evolution with respect to isis first focusing on the mere enemy, their co-religionists in the middle east and now they're focusing on the far enemy to build their caliphate. president obama who i have great affection for, i am not an obama basher, but what he has failed to do is to assure the american public that we are safe. 71% of americans, according to the latest polls, do not believe he has a clear path with respect to our fight against isis. and that is very bad. it allows folks like donald trump who has an insane kind of approach to paint the president as someone detached and aloof and nuanced, which unfortunately, he might be to a certain extent. >> let me push on that a little bit. this strikes me as a question about political discourse and rhetoric on the one hand and on the other hand about counter-terrorism as a strategy. one might, for example, use a public/political discourse and say i've got it, we're safe, i have a strategy that is not nuanced but really actually need a strategy that is maybe hard to explain to people for example on a sunday night at 8:00. talk to me about how one balances being honest with the public about how difficult something like this is while at the same time being reassuring. >> look, this is the threat and guess what, you're part of the response. knowing the fact that we can stop certain people who we know are evil from coming in, we can't stop the evil ideas from coming in and i think he has to be honest about that and recruit americans to if they see something say something but also give a clear plan about what he's going to do. he said that isis was contained which to some degree was technically correct but it was a political disaster. he called them in 2014 the jv team and on the day of the attacks in san bernardino which hurt our community he was talking about how safe america is. as someone who's a professor, i think he should be less profit sore yal. it allows people who have no knowledge, like a donald trump, to come out as strong saying, i'll tell you, i don't know what we're going to do but we're going to do it. i think it's one of those things where a fool with a plan looks better than a genius with none, but i think someone like donald trump looks like a fool with a bad plan. >> i hear you, dr. levin, but as much as maybe the president should be less profit sore yal, maybe we as the public should be more studious. >> yes. >> thank you to brian levin in irvine, california. once again, a reminder that msnbc will have live coverage of the president's oval office address beginning tonight at 7:00 p.m. anchored by chris matthews. up next, the big affirmative action case about to go before the supreme court. it takes a lot of work... to run this business. i'm on the move all day long... and sometimes, i just don't eat the way i should. so i drink boost to get the nutrition that i'm missing. boost complete nutritional drink has 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d to support strong bones and 10 grams of protein to help maintain muscle. all with a great taste. i don't plan on slowing down any time soon. stay strong. stay active with boost. now try new boost® compact and 100 calories. you're all set to book a flight using your airline credit card miles. and surprise! those seats sometimes cost a ridiculous number of miles, making it really hard to book the flight you want. luckily, there's a better way... with the capital one venture card. with venture, you'll earn unlimited double miles on every purchase, every day. and when you're ready to travel, just book the flight you want, on any airline, then use your miles to cover the cost. now you're getting somewhere. what's in your wallet? ♪ (vo) some call it giving back. we call it share the love. during our share the love event, get a new subaru, and we'll donate $250 to those in need. bringing our total donations to over sixty-five million dollars. and bringing love where it's needed most. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. it's gotten squarer. over the years. brighter. bigger. thinner. even curvier. but what's next? for all binge watchers. movie geeks. sports freaks. x1 from xfinity will change the way you experience tv. i'm a gas service my nrepresentative. n. i've been with pg&e nine years. as an employee of pg&e you always put your best foot forward to provide reliable and safe service and be able to help the community. we always have the safety of our customers and the community in mind. my family is in oakland, my wife's family is in oakland so this is home to us. being able to work in the community that i grew up in, customers feel like friends, neighbors and it makes it a little bit more special. together, we're building a better california. all eyes will be on the supreme court this wednesday when the justices begin hearing a major case that could put an end to race conscious admissions programs in higher education. fisher versus the university of texas is the latest of a decades long debate over race policies, one that is raising new questions over the meaning of diversity and just who gets to benefit from affirmative action. the case arose when aabigail fisher was denied admission for the university of texas at austin for the fall 2008 class. fisher claims she was not admitted because she is white and the university's race policy violated the equal protection clause. this is the case's second trip to the supreme court in three years. the case challenges one small part of the university's two tiered admission program. the university of texas is a public education institution that guarantees admission to all in-state applicants in the top ten percent of their high school class as mandated by the school's top ten percent law. u.t. accepts 75% of its students through this policy and the remainder of the class is selected through, quote, holistic review, a process that e evaluates each student. this review portion is what is at stake. fisher versus u.t. could potentially undo the 2003 decision where the supreme court ruled that public colleges and universities could not use a point system to increase minority enrollment but could consider race as one factor among many to ensure educational diversity. justice sandra day o'connor who wrote the opinion for the 2003 ruling said, quote, we expect in 25 years from now the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary. today, more than a decade later, the supreme court could, in fact, end them. joining me now, janay nelson, associate council for the naacp legal defense fund. hol holly fellow. john mcwerder, from columbia university and janell wong. so nice to see you. >> i want to start with the case before we get into the question of affirmative action. help folks to understand why fisher is in front of scotus again. >> if only we knew really why but i can tell you technically the reason it came back to court. the court remanded it in 2013 which means it sent it back to the lower courts to decide whether in fact the texas plan was narrowly tailored, whether the use of race which has been decided as a factor to consider admissions, whether this particular use of race was narrow enough to meet constitutional standards. that was the question before the fifth circuit. the fifth circuit said for the second time, yes, this is narrow enough, yes, this is appropriate, and it's now before the court to decide whether the fifth circuit made the right decision. >> for me part of why this is internetting coming out of texas is that the top ten percent plan was heralded initially as a solution to exactly the problem of race-based analysis around affirmative action. okay, everybody in all the schools, if you're in the top ten percent, recognizing that there are all of these inequities and even racial segregation within the schools, we're going to take you because there's a state system. and i think there's a way in which folks feel a genuine sense of how that feels fair as a percentage question, and yet you only fill 75% of the class that way. you got to make choices on the rest of it. so does this reconsideration also impact the ten percent plan? what's at stake here? >> i think it's going to have socioeconomic incentives at the center. in fisher one that was set up as a legal test that universities are required to show that race neutral alternatives are not sufficient to create the racial diversity that they need on campus before turning to race-based solutions. we haven't really seen any universities or the university of texas adequately show that. that's not to say that socioeconomic affirmative action plans will get you all the way and what the university of texas is doing is a great example, using the top ten percent has yielded some racial diversity. i think a key question here is as the university of texas continues to use race, are there other socioeconomic factors they should be using. there are more sophisticated ways that they could be doing this. >> as you talk about socioeconomic affirmative action, in certain ways it goes, john, to the fundamental question of what we think affirmative action is doing. so bollinger left for us diversity as a basis for using race. it said this isn't about reparation, this isn't about correcting the bad of the past. it is about saying that a diverse classroom matters. and yet when we start talking about socioeconomic affirmative, it seems like we're saying this provides opportunity for people who might not otherwise have it. you have been a supporter of socioeconomic ideas over the years. >> affirmative action was based on the idea that you wanted to repair, compensate for disadvantage. after about ten years that seemed not to be working for various reasons, and so then there was a new emphasis on the word that we now use for it which is diversity. and the fact of the matter is the diversity argument has always been extremely fragile, including in the original writings. i'm not sure that it seems to be working out very well as we've seen from recent events on college campuses, and to adjust for this advantage seems to me less controversial, less fraught, something more justifiable by a student as well as a faculty member or administrator than using race which on top of that today it's so much more complicated than it was in 1966 or 1976. as far as i'm concerned, affirmative action is wonderful, but you base it on disadvantage, which will include an awful lot of people of color, not on just the color of a person's skin and i mean by that race, and race is important. yes, race matters, but i don't think that the diversity rationale by itself is strong enough that we need to keep preserving it after all of this time. >> at the core always of this debate then is a question about merit and how we measure and what we think merit is which is always arou -- talk to me about that. >> all of us at this table agree that a more diverse classroom is better than a racially segregated classroom. i think we can all kind of agree on that major point, but i also think that we disagree about how to get there and how to measure merit. and so one of the issues is that there's an assumption that there is a race neutral kind of admissions policy that might be there for us to implement and when you look at the dominant ways in which universities might think about what is race neutral, they often go to test scores. that is a primary measure of merit. but test scores are not necessarily race neutral. in fact, there's recent research that shows from u.c. berkeley, that shows that test scores, the biggest predictor of test scores is race and race as a part of test scores and predicting test scores has grown over time and has become more important than both socioeconomic status and parents' education. so i think we need to just step back and think about the measure we use for merit. people are very complicated, as john says. they grow up in these complex environments and we need to take into account every part of that. >> so we've got everybody's positioned staked out here. when we come back, let's fight about