Axios reports that McMaster was asked about both Charlottesville and Bannon on this morning's Meet the Press

on Charlottesville:

  "I think what terrorism is, is the use of violence to incite terror and fear. And, of course, it was terrorism."

on Bannon, clearly, he is not sure about what's going to happen with Bannon, just covering his ass blather:

H.R. McMaster addressed the Steve Bannon rumors, specifically whether or not they can work together despite Trump's suspicions of Bannon leaking. Todd asked McMaster if he and Bannon could continue working in the same White House: "I am ready to work with anybody who will help advance the president's agenda and advance the security, prosperity of the American people."

#FireBannon

One thing that was odd about the most current statement--written by aides, I am sure, it was very clear live he was carefully reading off the teleprompter and they were not his words--is that they do not want him to label it terrorism for some reason. Rather they want to go after this as a civil rights issue. And Sessions is clearly on board with that, from before the statement he stated the investigation would be about civil rights. When most people would clearly make the terrorism analogy!

I was reminded of that by seeing these current pieces at Politico. There is some major message planning going on:

• Pence attempts to clarify Trump's 'many sides' comment

  By Louis Nelson

  • Pence assails media for criticizing Trump over Charlottesville
  • White House updates Trump's Charlottesville statement to condemn 'extremist groups'

• Playbook Plus

  Playbook: Trump doesn't call Charlottesville violence 'terrorism' in new statement

  By Jake Sherman, Anna Palmer and Daniel Lippman

Whether the Chief Clueless will follow along is of course always up in the air.

But I haven't figured out yet why this might be the preferred message: civil rights, not terrorism. Perhaps because that leaves the alt right room to say their behavior is along the lines of "white civil rights"? Or what? Just strange, because the car attack in particular could be labelled terrorism, as could the behavior with the outfits and signs and weapons, meant to strike fear. I dare say those guys would definitely strike fear in someone like my white Catholic mom, she would be afraid to go anywhere near where they were holding any kind of event. Imagine most people would see the terrorizing intended just by their presentation.

what's going on with having to drag the words out of him is right here, my underlining, from Politico's new "roundtable" piece on the "civil war" in the GOP

[....] It is just such thinking that infuriates Trump himself and his diehard backers, as was abundantly clear when I later interviewed for The Global Politico a second group that included strategist Roger Stone, a Trump friend and adviser of decades; Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, an anti-immigration activist now heading a controversial national electoral commission for Trump; and Kentucky-based commentator Scottie Nell Hughes. Not only were they not chagrined by Trump’s contentious first six months of his presidency, they urged him to get even more combative—against enemies within the GOP perhaps above all.

Stone, for one, says Trump should “throw Mitch McConnell and the boys over the sides so fast it would make your head spin” and fire his national security adviser H.R. McMaster for alleged ties to “globalists” like liberal Democratic donor George Soros. Stone even has unkind words for McConnell’s wife, Trump Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. Trump’s new chief of staff, John Kelly, came in for a warning after just two weeks on the job, with Stone saying the retired Marine general is already “on a very slippery slope” by trying to cut off Trump from hard-line supporters and the alt-right media. [....]