>> the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election gets turned inside out. i'm robert costa, and we'll have the latest on the federal probes. plus, why president trump has duclaired war on leaders of hard line conservatives, tonight on "washington week." president's trump fired national security advisor michael flynn wants to make a deal. the retired three-star general is offering to testify about alleged russian meddling in last year's election but only if he gets immunity. flynn had a different view of immunity last year when secretary clinton aids were questioned about her e-mail server. >> when you've given immunity that means you've committed a crime. ditto for donald trump. >> and if you're guilty of a

crime, why do you need immunity for? >> but today president trump called the congressional inquiry a rich hunt, meanwhile, the senate intelligence committee held an eye opening committee into russian interference in american democracy. >> follow the trail of dead russians. there's been more dead rurkians that are tied to this investigation who have assets in banks all over the world. they are dropping dead even in western countries. >> and we learned that white house staffers secretly provided house intelligence committee devin nunes with information to support the president's claim that he was wiretapped by former president obama. we cover it all with dan bolls of "the washington post." kelly o'donnell of nbc news, alexis simendinger of real clear politics and ed o'keefe of "the washington post" and cbs news.

announcer: celebrating 50 years. this is "washington week." funding is provided by -- >> their leadership is instinctive. they understand the challenges of today, and research the technologies of tomorrow. some call them veterans. we call them part of our team. additional funding is provided by newman's own foundation donating all profits from newman's own food products to charity and nourishing the common good. cou and patricia ewing committed to bridging cultural differences in our community.

the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. once again from washington, robert costa of "the washington post." robert: good evening. the investigations into russian interference in the 2016 election continued to playing the trump administration. house intelligence chairman devin nunes is under scrutiny for receiving top surveillance reports from white house officials. president trump's former national security advisor michael flynn is looking for legal protection from prosecution in exchange about any possible collusion between the trump campaign and the kremlin. and paul mannafort, roger stone and former policy advisor carter page have agreed to testify without the promise of immunity. immunity deal is not a sign of

guilt but it would make it all but impossible for the justice department to prosecute flynn. lots to unpack here. let's begin with flynn who president trump fired last month because he misled vice president pence about his contact with russia's ambassador to the u.s. during the transition. kelly, what is the response on capitol hill amid all this controversy. kelly: there's a bit of surprise because i'm told ha the attorney -- told that the attorney did not expressive ask for immunity but did so in a public statement. there is the real track and then there's the theatrical track. there's resistance to the idea. early in the investigation people aren't sure yet what the right questions are and would general flynn be able to bring something to this investigation? also concerns about getting in the way of what the f.b.i. may be doing. tonight, i'm told that adam schiff the democrat on the house intelligence committee spent 10

minutes. imagine -- with the president. imagine being a fly just after seeing the same information that devin nunes was able to see. a lot of tension on that committee. that's one of the problems in the flynn investigation. that tension has made it hard to move forward. they want to get back on track next week. what did they talk about? i'm told it was infrastructure and legislative things which would be appropriate given the fact that adam schiff has been trying to keep separate from the white house. robert: is that possible? can the white house escape the shadow. flynn came out of nowhere on thursday night that he's seeking immunity. >> i don't see they can escape it. they're in it for the long haul. that's been badly compromised by what chairman nunes did in going to the white house and looking at these documents without sharing with members of his committee. the senat investigation is in

the opening stages. the hearing they had this week was quite interesting and provocative but it wasn't anywhere close to the meat of what they are trying to get to the bottom of. and they both, the chair and the ranking democrat on the committee have made clear that they recognize that one of the questions they have to try to get an answer to is whether there was, in fact, collusion or corporation between the trump campaign or trump associates and the russians. there's all of that. and then you have the f.b.i. we are months and months and months away from it. the white house has compounded the problem by their handling of what they did with devin nunes. they opened up a new front which is what did white house officials do? why did they do it? who else knew about it? all of that still remains to be figured out. robert: we look at the congressional sphere. it's complicated. you have devin nunes who has all of these questions over him about his relationship with the white house. but then you have senator burr

working with the democratic senator mike warner from virginia. they seem to be taking a different approach than the house intelligence committee after they had these questions. >> finally there are adults in charge. there are adults leading an investigation on the hill. and it is by all accounts a much more serious, substantive and secretive investigation. these senators are not talking. marco rubio says he spends eight hours a week on this stuff. that's a significant amount of stuff for a senator to be doing other than raise funding. and in the benghazi investigation and now those investigators have clearance to see the most sensitive information that anyone in the government ever sees shows you how serious they're taking it. and if that investigation can be maintained and can remain free of partisan, it probably will emerge as the most significant

one next to the f.b.i. investigation. robert: alexis i saw you sitting in the white house briefing room asking tough questions of sean spicer. it seemed like every question was about russia, was about general flynn and his immunity request. how is the white house handling this? what's their strategy? alexis: not well. why i say that is because the white house has had two narratives going at the same time. one is there's nothing to see here about russia and collusion. and the other part of it is let's look at the distraction which is supposedly not about russia at all and directing us to the president's team's own investigations. so today's what was interesting to me listening to this agonized discussion about what chairman nunes has, who gave it to him, what schiff was going to see and the fact that that was in essence a distraction is where do they think this is going to go if the president day after

day from the podium, his spokesperson is showing that the president wants to be the prosecutor? he wants to be the judge. he wants to be the investigation. and that as dan suggested keeps it alive beyond what any attorney white house staff would have ever advised a president to do. kelly: we've all covered presidents who would stay far away from any kind of investigation. and this president uses sucher vockity words, "witch hunt" is such a strong word. immunity which sounded so great on twitter was the absolutely last thing that you would request when he was a candidate. not understanding how potent na is now and maybe not caring that he is of the moment and he's trying to drive a narrative about this seems to still be protective of flynn in some way. robert: is there political cost for the president's response? during the campaign he railed against secretary clinton and her associates for their immunity and that investigation with the f.b.i. but now he seems

to be embracing the concept? dan? dan: if you look at his approval ratings which they started out low, lower than any incoming president, they're lower now than when he came into office. that could be because of other missteps along the way. when he has done what he did particularly the accusation that former president obama illegally in essence ordered a wire type of trump towers, that broke through. there's a lot of this that hasn't broken through with the general public that broke through. and it has caused them no end of grief. because of that tweet, they have gone through great lengths to try to prove what apparently cannot be proved. and they have gopten themselves in this problem with devin nunes. and the president is inflicting this wound on himself and his administration. >> and it is a bacteria that has

spread across the capitol. it overshadowed the confirmation hearings for neil gorsuch. it played out while republicans stumbled on healthcare. it is tying the up the ability to get a spending bill done because this festers. we go a few days with nothing. and suddenly devin nunes and schiff announce a new surprise that totally up ends things. and i call it a bacteria and not a virus because a virus takes time to cure itself. a bacteria can be cured very quickly with medicine. there are so many republicans who say if only they would shut up and get out of the way. or get everything out there and let the investigators deal with it. and move on then we would be able to move on and focus more substantively on the investigation. robert: the challenge, i encountered the same challenges among many republicans. you have the controversy with

devin nunes, you have the flynn immunity situation but you also have this broader russia question -- >> a serious and enduring problem. robert: it's enduring. the senate intelligence committee held their first public hearing into russia. we learned secretary clinton was one of the people they targeted with misinformation. florida senator marco rubio said his presidential campaign staff was targeted twice. the testimony we heard was alarming. we learned about the size, the scope and the sophistication of russia's sube cyber warfare which is believed to have employed 1,500 hackers who disseminated information during the 2016 campaign. >> they were in full swing during both the republican and democratic primary season and they have helped sink the hopes of candidates long before the field narrow. robert: ed, you played close attention to the senate hearing, what did we learn? and how is the russia question

of interference going to hover long after some of these political issues last? >> the experts say that bush, rubio and other candidates plus clinton were in one way or another hacked or attacked by these russian hackers. and what i found most interesting with the rubio situation is it now perhaps explains why last summer he was urging caution among republicans to sort of say, hey if the shoe were on the other foot you would feel much differently about this. this suggests that maybe he knew as an intelligence member that his campaign was targeted. it was quite revealing is the beginning of really starring to put together the pieces of what russia has been doing, is still doing and could do in the future. i think sort of helps snap this back into a little more serious focus for lawmakers especially

with what nunes has been doing. robert: he seems to be on television every second. he seems be a top ally of donald trump. is he hobbled by the way this has unfolded with his visit to meet with these officials about intelligence information, kelly? kelly: i'm told paul ryan is still fully confident in nunes in this role. at the same time there are questions from others in the conference about how he has handled this. he's an affable person that will answer your questions in the hallways. that maybe should be a red flag not that he's giving a way secrets but he's willing to engage and sometimes that can be treacherous. today he gave an interview where he talked about some of the fact that some of the names that have been circulated of nabble security council staffers may not have been his source but might have been someone who was aware of his presence on his ground that's adding a bit more oxygen which is the thing that

he should not be doing while he may be trying to explain or answer he open as new pathway. there is frustration among other republicans. but we know to top a committee chairman would be so significant. so we're not there yet. >> one of the interesting things about the congressman was how quick he was to again, repeat that there was no evidence that barack obama or the obama team had wiretapped trump tower. but then he wandered into this discussion with great preparation in terms of what he intended to do not in preparation in tems of what he was saying that he was concerned about this idea that there was surveillance that the united states is doing and is incidentally picking up innocent americans in this context. and this was really the meat of the concern. the white house is also trying to say this is what people should be up in arms about, the leaking, not what russia is doing in our democracy. if you listen at the white house and we're repeatedly asking what

is the president of the united states doing to respond to director comey's evidence, testimony that this is continuing now and this is continuing not only in the united states but in europe by russia and you just get kind of silenced. robert: because nunes, alexis, shares the president's view accord toge all of their advisors and associates that there's a deep state. and nunes articulate this is a lot that there's this deep state of current and former officials who are leaking against the white house. and this perhaps explains the witch hunt tweet by the president and the whole response by the white house. >> but remember, one of the things that we have to not forget march 4th the tweet about the wiretapping is what set off an entire government looking for the evidence to support the tweet. and there has been nothing that i have seen or heard to suggest that this effort inside the white house to search through intelligence is anything other than that. kelly: perhaps the michael flynn quote that unsealed his

conversations with the russian ambassador is a bit mixed in there as well. but you do get the sense that there is a search mission to find something that would support the tweet. robert: everyone wants to learn more about what general flynn has said. i love the line from the lawyer. he has a compelling story, quite the story to tell. we'll see if he's able to tell it. but the cloud of russian intrigue isn't the only thing distracting the white house. the failure of the g.o.p.'s replacement healthcare plan last friday has left the president frustrated especially with the house freedom caucus. he put them on notice as he does on twitter. trump wrote "the freedom caucus will hurt the entire republican agenda. if they don't get on the team and fast. we must fight them and dems in 2018. ." members of the freedom caucus fired right back. they said they're doing the work of their constituents. >> a very conservative guy, in

my district we're out of service. he's going to get someone more conservative than me if he gets me out of office. if somebody can get to the right of me in the primary, god bless them. and that's the problem that the president is potentially setting himself up for. that if you think these guys are inflexible, just wait until you see the alternative. robert: i spoke to one official who had this quote that they're going to send air force one, dan, down to the districts of the freedom caucus and they said nothing's more clarifying than the smell of jet fuel. >> i talked to a couple of republicans right after the bell fell a week ago. and these are people who used to be in the house but no longer are. their view was that the president would be smart to literally target one or two of them and, you know, give them a lesson in what presidential power could be. so there's some view that there

ought to be a price paid for defying a president in the first 65 days or whatever it was. but i mean, the reaction of them is -- is indicative of what's happening. he drives them together. he makes them more resistant. he hasn't found a way to appeal to them. and he couldn't cajole them on the healthcare bill. and now it's not clear he's going to be able to threaten them to come their way. kelly: one theory i heard while he's naming some of these members, the prominent ones that perhaps the tweet message is intended for some of the nos that are less well known not wanting to incure the wrath of the president. i heard it when the members are not there. they're showing themselves to be the fearless caucus more than the freedom caucus. they're impervious of the president's threat. what we don't know is what will happen when they go home? robert: is this election going to be revived? >> it's impossible to imagine of

that happening right now because there is such quick eagerness on the part of all the republicans who felt so stunned by this to move on. paul ryan, the speaker sounded that way. the president sounded that way. his first initial reaction to that was to move on after spending three long weeks working on it. and there doesn't -- no one i have interviewed have described it as a realistic possibility. although what some republicans have said is that they so -- this is really getting into the wes but they so wanted the revenues out of the healthcare to keep it going, keep it on the stove, at least keep talking about how this is important to tax reform as an inducement to these arch-conservatives. >> and the raw pom ticks is that both parties would like to run a midterm election on healthcare and immigration. two of the largest most trickiest issues domestically to deal with. they are good in election years if. if they don't do anything, it's

out there. the president will blame democrats because it is their law. chuck schumer said we have ideas. we will present them. as long as they start to back up that this is going to repeal. >> rhealisticly they are not going to play ball with them. i said would you work with the president on healthcare? >> he said i would be happy to work with the president to get a public option into the affordable care act. so those are the kinds of lines -- [laughter] >> they're never going to come together. robert: so that was a showdown. there was another showdown and that's brewing right now in congress because congressional republicans in the white house over a stop gap budget bill to keep the budget operating after late april. president trump wants $ 3 billion in border spending to help pay for a border wall. $18 million would be cut to

offset that and pay for part of the wall. democrats and republicans however conservative republicans are rejecting the proposal on fiscal grounds. kelly, we're facing a potential government shutdown if republicans and democrats can't get this appropriations package through. kelly: we've lived through a few of them. we know what those late nights are like. what i'm being told is they want to turn the drama down especially what was supposed to be the easier one to coalesce around to deal with something like, this they want to quiet things. i'm assured and we've heard this before, no government shutdown. what's different is the pain of what happened with the past government shutdown and these brink moments is a real pain that has been seen at the ballot box and drives the phone calls to capitol hill which is a potent way of getting to congress members. i think the conversations are going on about what to president a lot of questions of how they can -- what to present a lot of

questions of how they can include that. the border wall off the table. robert: your take on all this? and you spoke with chuck schumer this week. are democrats going to work with republicans? >> if there's nothing about defunding planned parenthood, if they don't ask for money to hire what they call a deportation then yes, democrats will go along wit. no going back to sequestration style spending cuts and whatnot. along as everything's on party. they need democrats in the senate. they're going to need some in the house to off d-set the freedom caucus. they want do do this when they get back from easter because they're going to spend two weeks getting yelled at and they want to show some progress. robert: the president has a trust gap with many top

democrats going back to the birther issue and so many other fronts. >> we were surprised to hear president trump -- initially the blame was on the democrats. he said maybe we should talk to democrats. he thinks he's going to need democrats on some other big things. help wants to get support on other things that he would like to accomplish. in this particular case, democrats would like to signal, yes, we would like to talk to them about their agenda. the democrats are like yes, we want to talk to them if they want to talk about our agenda. there's still this definite clash. >> chuck schumer said they will not tolerate and participate at all. >> it's hard when he tweets we have to fight both the democrats and the freedom caucus in 2018. and the white house continues to make accusations about the obama administration and what they may

have done to try to increase the awareness of the surveillance of what the trump people were doing . everything they're doing goes in opposite direction of finding awhat to get together. robert: thanks, everybody. what a week. and welcome, kelly, to washington. it's great to have you here. our conversations continue on the "washington week" extra where we'll talk about the shakeup at the democratic national committee where the new chairman has asked the entire staff to resign. plus, why ivanka trump and jared cushner may be the ultimate power couple in washington. you can watch that later on pbs.org/washingtonweek. i'm robert costa, and enjoy your weekend. kelly?

announcer: funding for "washington week" is provided by -- boeing, newman's own foundation donating all profits from newman's own food products to charity and nourishing the common good. coup and patricia ewing through the ewing foundation committed to brinling cultural differences in our community. the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. coming up, there is no other queen in history whose life

has been so inextricably linked with london. london is at the heart of the monarchy, and the queen is at the heart of london. this is her city, a city whose great ceremonies and traditions tell a royal story. because this great city is very much like the monarchy. in her diamond jubilee year, elizabeth's story is our story... explore new worlds and new ideas through programs like this, made available for everyone through contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. where we'll be examining and celebrating the role of queen elizabeth ii in england