If food gets mentioned within the first hour of the show, it appears magically by the last few seconds. What have you learned . Its National Pancake day. Stop. Its not worth it. Seconds. Pat ridge family. Come on, get happy. If its way too early, its morning joe. Now its time for chuck todd the daily rundown. Confidential killing. An nbc news exclusive. A Justice Department memo says the government can kill americans believed to be top al qaeda leaders, even if theres no active plot to attack the United States. This controversial document also has new details on the legal justification behind more drone strikes against al qaeda subjects. Red rover, karl roves new push to score some winners is getting pushback from powerful conservative groups. This morning, a debate between one of roves point men and one of his top critics. And who do you know . And do you know who this guy is . You should. He just might be the most powerful person in israeli politics not named netanyahu right now. Find out what an unexpected power surge from the center could mean for u. S. Hopes for mideast peace. Good morning from washington. Its tuesday, february 5th, 2013. This is the daily rundown. Im chuck todd. Lets get to my first reads. President obamas state of the Union Address is just a week from today and the president is flooding the zone. Worried the federal budget could dominate and limit his agenda this year. Hes pushing other issues. Hes talking guns one day, immigration the next. Making sure hes not drawn into a standoff with republicans over the economy which would quickly come to define his second term. Today, he makes the case on immigration to business leaders, including ceos like steve case and Monica Lozano from his now disbanded jobs council and chief executives of cocacola and yahoo . He also meets with labor and progressive leaders. The meetings will focus on how Immigration Reform fits into his broader economic agenda. Homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano on monday brought that message to Border Security operations near san diego. Our immigration system has been broken for far too long. Time to fix it has come. Time is of the essence. I believe the border is secure. I believe the border is a safe border. Thats not to say that everything is 100 . Today napolitano will visit the border in el paso, texas. The white house from the white house is Immigration Reform. Yesterday the subject was guns with Police Officers behind him. The president called on congress to act. But then seemed to lower expectations for what will count in his head as a win. We dont have to agree on everything to agree its time to do something. Its really important for us to engage with folks who dont agree with us on everything because we hope that we can find some areas where we do agree. There wont be perfect solutions. No law or set of laws can keep our children completely safe. If theres even one thing we can do if theres even one thing we can dork just one step we can take, weve got an obligation to take that step. Weve got an obligation. That one thing may be background checks. While the president said only that an assault weapons ban deserves a vote in congress, he called for a measure on universal background checks to be passed quickly. We know, for example, from polling that universal background checks are universally supported just about by gun owners. So if weve got lobbyists in washington claiming to speak for gun owners, saying something different, we need to go to the source and reach out to people directly. The political realities that the president faces in congress were made stark when here on msnbc, the president s host, minneapolis mayor slammed harry reid for saying he hadnt read Dianne Feinsteins bill banning assault weapons. How can harry reid, a fellow democrat, and im willing to criticize him, say he hasnt read the bill. This is an emergency. Lets knock off the washington baloney and support the president and get some things done. The white house wants to overload washingtons political circuits. An effort to see what it can get through Congress Without letting congress and particularly congressional republicans, define what issues get addressed. Republican leaders are making it clear they prefer to talk about just one thing before the march budget shutdown. This was supposed to be the day that the president submitted his budget to the congress. But its not coming. I think thats too bad. Our economy could use some president ial leadership right now. And Top Senate RepublicanMitch Mcconnell was just as eager to talk budget hitting the floor to slam democrats for floating new revenue proposals. This is just another opportunity to trot out the democrat focus Group Approved policy stunt. If this is another fake fight designed by the white house to push us to the brink, then republicans are really not interested in playing along. Now to the big nbc news exclusive we told you about at the top. A 16page white paper that has been secret until now. Obama administration lawyers argued that it is legal to kill a u. S. Citizen if, quote, informed and an informed high level official decides that target was a ranking figure in an al qaeda or an associated group with who posed an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States. The question isnt academic. Such a strike has taken place. Took place in yemen, september 2011, killing an alleged al qaeda operative Anwar Al Awlaki and samir kahn. Both were american citizens who had not been indicted by the u. S. Government or technically charged with any crimes. This undated white paper, which was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and judiciary committees last june on the condition it be kept confidential is not classified. Its been cloaked in secrecy along with the legal memo its derived from referred to only obliquely in this white paper memo like at this hearing in march of last year. I still want to see the office of Legal Council memorandum and order you to keep working on that. I realize its a matter some of debate within the administration, but. That would be true. With cia nominee John Brennans confirmation hearing set for thursday, the pressure on the administration to be more transparent will only increase. In the last year, the Administration Officials have given several speeches that were designed to give the illusion of transparency on this issue by the use of force in targeted killings without being fully transparent. Brennan was the First Administration official to publicly acknowledge the drone strikes calling them, quote, ethical and just in a speech at the Wilson Center last year. It is hard to imagine a tool that can better minimize the risk to civilians than remotely piloted aircraft. For the same reason, targeted strikes conform the principle of humanity which requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering. And at a speech last march at Northwestern University law school, attorney general eric holder said the targeted killings of americans are constitutional if government officials determine the target poses an imminent threat of violent attacks. Familiar words from that white paper. Some have called such operations assassinations. They are not. And the use of that loaded term is misplaced. It is spirely lawful under both United States law and applicable law of war principles to target to target specific senior operational leaders of al qaeda and associated forces. Now advocates for Civil Liberties have been unsettled by how broadly imminent attack appears to be defined. According to this white paper, for instance, quote, the condition that an operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on u. S. Persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be infeasible, according to the memo. But what exactly that means is left largely undefined. Expect these questions to come up at brennans confirmation hearing. Whether we get to see it in the public. Congress has been Surprise League silent on this. Very few members have demanded more transparency or oversight. Even leon panetta said thats going to have to change. The transparency on this is very limited and does that mean a change and more oversight for congress to step in . I think the way to do it is in title ten operations, socalled title ten operations, military operations, i think a lot more of this can be put under title ten and that on title 50 we always ought to have that capability to use a covert effort if we have to. But very limited. I would limit that. Ahead of brennans hearings, eight democratic and three republican senators have written to president obama asking for the actual legal opinions themselves authorizing the killing of americans from that letter. So that congress and the public can decide whether this authority has been properly defined and whether the president s pow twoer deliberately kill american citizens is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguard. Three members of the Intelligence Committee signed the letter. Ron wyden, udall and susan collins. Michael isikoff obtained the controversial memo that concludes the United States government can order the killing of american citizens. He broke this story on nbcnews. Com and joins me now. So, michael, this has been this has been a debate inside the administration for a while to ever go public with this or not. We know the president himself, when he was a candidate, was very critical of the Bush Administration when they were hiding legal opinions, having to do with detainees and torture and things like that. As were a lot of democrats. In fact, the release of the socalled torture memos was one of the democratic refrains for years during the latter years of the Bush Administration. And you look at this memo, which is an Obama Administration memo. First of all, you read it in its entirety. People can go on dotcom. Its really hard to see anything there thats that relates to operational security. Its not classified. Its purely legal arguments. So why has it taken until now for us to get a copy of it and let the public read it . We know for sure the memo was written by the Justice Department. We assume inside the olc, the office of legal counsel. Thats what we believe. The sequence of events, as i understand them is this. Members of congress, pat leahy, others, were demanding to see the olc memos on targeted killing of americans. Jane harman who was in the house Intelligence Committee saying she was stunned more hadnt been demanding this. Say theyd asked during the bush years for olc memos. Democrats were not nearly as loud on this subject as they were during the bush years, but they were asking for them. And so what the Justice Department did was say, okay, were not going to give you the olc memos because were not going to release those, but well give you this 16page white paper that reflects and tracks the analysis of the olc memos. And thats the document that we got. Now they gave they turned that over to the committee under the rule it be Committee Confidential and not be discussed publicly. So for the last six months you have not heard one word about the analysis that is in this memo. If the olc memos cant be seen by house and Senate Intelligence committees, they deal with classified information all the time. As much as we want to say congress leaks all the time, these people dont leak. And the administration refuses to show them these . Who sees these memos . Well, is it basically three or four people total. Authoritative Legal Adviser to the executive branch to the president. So theres a small nobody in the legislative branch and nobody in the Judicial Branch sees these memos . The most Transparent Administration in history has taken the position that this is confidential legal advice for the president and nobody else can see it. But look. Lets talk about the substance. You reflected on that. And i think thats where the real news here is. Weve had these public speeches by holder saying, okay. Theres a threeset test. The first test is imminent evidence of imminent violent attack on the United States. Then you go into this white paper memo and you see how they are defining imminent attack and they talk about what they refer to, the striking phrase of broader concept of imminence than having active intelligence that a plot is under way. Who determines imminent threat . A high level informed official, according to this memo. That could be the president. That could be the cia director. Could be john brennan who has been the architect of the drone campaign. Thats very subjective. But clearly theres a lot of latitude there for people who to make decisions about who they want to go which american citizens they want to go after and which they dont. Talking about stretching the actual framework of american law and the constitution. Thats going to spark a hearty debate, i imagine, when john brennan meets his conversation. Mike isikoff, i have a feeling youll have a very busy day having to explain on air what you did off air last night in breaking that story. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Up next, a Republican Party at a crossroads. Get it . Grand old problem. Is party purity more important than winning elections. We have one of the men running karl roves new push to push candidates who can win. First, a look ahead at todays politics planner. As you can see, the Vice President is in the uk today meeting with Prime Minister cameron, among others. Nick clegg as well. President obama. The big eric cantor speech. [ male announcer ] citi turns 200 this year. In that time thereve been some good days. And some difficult ones. But, through it all, weve persevered, supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. So why should our anniversary matter to you . Because for 200 years, weve been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. And the next great idea could be yours. One of the biggest political stories of 2013 will be how the Republican Party reinvents itself. And where the tea party fits in. Some veteran republicans believe that Tea Party Conservatives cost the party as many as five senate seats over the last two cycles by getting into general Election Races they couldnt win. Now a new group led by karl rove is vowing to take on Tea Party Candidates to either defeat them or bring them into the mainstream. With me is steven law who is leading the conservative victory project and chris chicola, former indiana congressman and president of the club for growth which opposes mr. Roves new effort. Welcome, gentlemen. You guys have promised to not physically engage. Just verbally. Come on. Just verbal strikes. Why do you believe this is necessary, and what makes your track record at american crossroads, which wasnt great in 2012 sure. One thats worthy of following to bring the Republican Party back into the majority in the u. S. Senate . Chuck, we invested over 30 million between 2010 and 2012 in very conservative tea party backed candidates. Some of them are great. Rubio, rand paul, pat toomey. Some were disastrous. Todd akin, David Murdock and sharron angle. We need to evaluate everything we did. But it also includes, i think, focusing more on quality candidate selection to make sure that weve got really, really good candidates who can win in elections and that we can effectively back when we get into general elections. Chris, one of the chief complaints i hear from people like steve having to do with the club for growth is that you guys get involved in a primary and then you dont get involved and you walk away. When you win you dont do as much that can be done in a general election. Facts matter. And the fact is in seven election cycles, 14 years, the club for growth has backed two candidates in contested primaries that became the nominee. So they won the primary, that didnt become members of congress. Two in 14 years. Who are those two . Richard mourdock and sharron angle. Everyone else weve endorsed in a primary. In a contested primary that they won, they became members of congress. So we think thats a record that, you know, not too troubling. And the question really isnt why did Richard Mourdock and todd akin lose. We know why. The question is why did tommy thompson, rick burg, Denny Rehberg why did they lose . They were establishment backed kind of clear the field type of candidates so they can just win these races. Its not the obvious loss. Its nobody has to question why should all these establishment candidates lose. Respond. Sure, i think chris raises a good point. The issue of can