it's health ca4:00. if you were my attorney general, would you have recused yourself from the russia investigation? that's the question president trump is putting to friends and allies lately, along with sharing his theory that all of his current political problems are tied to that single act by jeff sessions, the act of recusing himself from the russia investigation, which led to the appointment of special counsel, bob mueller. "the new york times" today reporting that president trump has intermittently fumed for months over mr. session' decision to recuse himself from the russia investigation into meddling in last year's election. the white house today dodging questions about trump's level of confidence in his ag. >> how would you describe the president's level of confidence in the attorney general, jeff sessions? >> i have not had a discussion with him about that. >> the last time you said that, there was a development. >> i'm asking -- i'm answering a question, which is, i have not had that discussion with him. >> so you can't say he has confidence in his attorney general? >> i said i have not had a discussion with him on the question. fich if i haven't had a discussion with him on a subject, i tend

not to speak about it. >> i want to get to my reporters, julie pace and michael schmidt. julie pace, when sean spicer says, i've not had a chance to ask him about that, it usually doesn't mean he wasn't around or he wasn't free, it usually means, in the short history of this white house, that it's something they don't want to address. >> yeah, it was pretty odd that sean spicer couldn't just say flat-out that the president has confidence in his attorney general. the standard answer, unless there's something going on is, yes, of course the president continues to have confidence in that person, filling a very important role. but as "the new york times" has reported, this is true, the decision by jeff sessions to recuse himself really has irked the president for months. if you remember, after sessions made that announcement, we had a squabble in the oval office, between the president and some top aides, and then, of course, the tweets about president obama wiretapping, the allegations that he wiretapped trump tower.

this is something that has been simmering for quite some time here. >> michael schmidt, we know what happens when this president simmers, sometimes he blows. is jeff sessions' job safe? >> i think it would be -- well, look, he could get rid of sessions, and that would obviously be a very, very dramatic thing. but it would come literally on the heels of him getting rid of his fbi director. the thing about getting rid of sessions is that session, because he's recused, is not part of the russia investigation. if he was pushed aside, the president would not be criticized for that. ooum not really sure that it makes sense that because sessions recused himself, the russia issue is a problem. it seems like these congressional committees are going to move forward with this, the fbi was going to move forward with it. so it doesn't completely make logical sense to blame it on sessions. i think there's certainly a body of evidence that the government's looking at, that sessions has nothing to do with. >> well, you're hemmed in now by

logic, that's no fun for the purposes of this conversation. michael schmidt, i want to turn to a search for the fbi director. i understand the president to be narrowing his search at this point. and that the candidates actually feel that the appointment of bob mueller makes the job a little more viable in terms of the fbi being able to be what it has always been or traditionally been, which is an independent law enforcement agency. what are you picking up about that search? >> well, it could be sympatheom that they could -- you know, look, thursday could be a very difficult day for the white house when comey testifies. and maybe coming out of that on friday, the white house could announce the new fbi director and perhaps take some of the attention away from cowemey's testimony. look, this process has played out i think a little bit longer than folks thought it would. it is an incredibly prestigious job. there's a lot of people who may not be trump supporters who are still interested in this job, because it's a very unique thing. you're appointed to a ten-year term.

it's supposed to wrap around two presidencies, you know, possibly two presidencies. you know, the thing here, though, that we've learned about the fbi director is that despite being insulated by that ten-year term, they can be fired and comey certainly being fired in the dramatic fashion that he was, you know, and ending far earlier, you know, six years earlier than he thought it would. >> julie, i want to -- michael brought comey into the conversation and i thought saw somewhere that there's a theory that the president may live tweet the comey testimony. what are you hearing about how easily donald trump will be able to get on to his twitter account thursday during that testimony? >> well, so far, the white house is trying to stock his schedule in an attempt, it seems, to avoid the tweets. he's going to be at an infrastructure summit in the morning, then he's going to be at a faith and freedom conference a little bit later in the day. but, look, the president follows the news. it's not as though if you put him at an event in the middle of

the testimony, that he's going to avoid it completely. and he has shown despite the legal questions and the potential legal trouble he could get into, by going back and forth with comey, he's shown that he's willing to do that. and what you have to remember about president trump is for all the advice he gets, both legal, political, communications, he is his own strategist. and if he feels like jim comey said something that he wants to rebut, it's going to be pretty much impossible for someone at the white house to stop him from doing that. >> that and the fact that he hasn't actually hired anyone in his war room. all right, you guys are staying with us. but i want to bring in today's panel, joel benson, former senior adviser to hillary clinton's campaign. former u.s. attorney and watergate prosecutor, nick ackerman. democratic strategist, nick feldman, who worked a as a senior adviser to al gore, and mike feldman. so nick, i want to start with you, and this question of comey's testimony on thursday. i understand now that bob

mueller has sent the signal pretty loud and clear that the congressional committees will not be restrained in terms of their investigations into russia's role in our election in 2016. what does that mean we could hear from jim comey on thursday? >> i think what you're going to hear are basically the facts of his conversations with people in the white house. you're going to hear what he said to president trump. you're going to hear what trump said to him. and you're going to hear what other conversations he had with other members of the trump team. i think you're going to get that, but what you're not going to get is really kind of the status of the fbi investigation, the nuts and bolts of that investigation, who they're talking to, what the basis of their evidence is at this point. i think that's going to be off-limits. >> will someone say to jim comey, were you asked to back off of the investigation into mike flynn? >> i would absolutely think that is high on the list of questions. >> what do you think he's going to stay? based on what we know from

trump? >> i think he's going to say whatever it was that trump told him. i think he's got it all written down in memos. it's all spelled out. i think he does what every other lawyer does who's in that situation, particularly somebody who is a former prosecutor. when you feel like you're in a situation dealing with somebody who is off and a bit strange in putting you in a compromising position, i think it's pretty much standard practice as a former prosecutor that what you wind up doing is putting in a memo to the file and you put in as much detail as you can. so you're not going to have a tape recording, but you are going to have a contemporaneous record of what was said in jim comey's own handwriting. >> mike feldman, we heard from the president today, who wished jim comey luck. let's watch. >> what message do you have to jim comey ahead of his testimony? >> i wish him luck. >> so he wishes him luck. do you think he wishes that he hadn't taunted him by talking about taping him when someone like jim comey, as nick said,

probably was taking copious notes of all of those interactions? >> yeah, look, i don't think the president, at least as far as i can tell, regrets very much of anything. or ever feels like he should pull back -- >> where can we buy that chip? >> i don't think that's in his dna. look, i think the president's been on the offense from day one. >> let me start with you. you don't think he regrets the fact that -- his muslim ban is in legal jeopardy because of his tweets. he may have some -- now, abc is reporting that jim comey is going to come up short of suggesting that there was an obstruction of justice case against the president of the united states, but the fact we're even talking about how close he's going to come to the line, you don't think he regrets tweeting his way to the line of a possible obstruction of justice case? >> i don't think he does -- >> because he's incapable? because he's -- >> i think he is incapable. i think he's looking for blame in a lot of places. he's not looking in the mirror. and to your point, that's where a lot of the blame lies. i don't think he looks at the past 150 days and thinks, man, i wish i had some of those hours back or some of that bandwidth

back, or i had actually been more strategic or intentional about how i advanced my agenda. i think he sees everything moment to moment. and in some ways, looking at that clip, i think he's looking forward to tomorrow. i think he's ready to mix it up with the guy. and isn't afraid to do so. and if -- now, i think that's where the president is. i'm quite sure that's not where his staff is -- >> his lawyers are. >> let me bring robert traynham into this conversation. i'm pretty sure that's not where the public are, who hopes their trips would be for this long-waited conservative agenda that paul ryan's been making charts about for years and years. but instead, he's going to be watching jim comey on thursday. >> republicans are very, very concerned for obvious reasons. these are all self-inflicted wounds. it would be one thing if this was iran contra or something like that, there was a big policy discussion and the president stumbled upon this by mistake. every single thing that the

president has done so far, at least from a bad perspective, has been self-inflicted. we've got to remember two thing about this president. number one, he's a very emotional thinker. he thinks off the cuff. that's been fairly successful for him for the past 50 to 60 years he's been in real estate. and the second thing, we have to remind ourselves, he's not a political animal. this is his first job on the national stage and he's still -- he trusts no one and he doesn't have political instincts. sean spicer, god bless him, he's a good friend of mine witmine, of feeling his way through the dark. the president is his own strategist, his own political spokesperson, his own policy person, and he doesn't have any experience in this. so paul ryan and mitch mcconnell are saying, please, stop the drama here and let's focus on policy here. because after all, you won and you won convincingly. >> and we're going to get into the polls. polls are starting to reflect exactly what robert is talking about. but i want to read you something from the wall street. and i don't know how it goes in your party, guys. but in my party, when you lose

t"the wall street journal," you're bleeped. >> you're toast. >> so "the wall street journal" today basically positing that the trump white house could end up -- here's one quote. mark it down as further evidence that the most effective opponent of the trump presidency is donald j. trump. words very much reflected by robert's comments. but they also write that the way he sort of is cannibalizing human resources. and we started by talking about whether jeff sessions' job is in trouble, but the end of this, he may have just his family and breitbart staffers left working in the west wing. >> think about it. it goes back to something michael said. that is guy, when did he ever take responsibility for anything? he's always blaming somebody else? you now have someone like kellyanne conway's own husband decline a job -- >> yeah, that was like too much into that marriage for me. you've got kellyanne on the "today" show, her husband on twitter. >> he not only doesn't take the job but is critical of the president and his tweeting? you would think he would call his wife at the office.

>> donald trump learned a lesson from larry cohn years ago, never admit you made a mistake and never admit you're wrong. that is a terrible way to run the united states . people expect you to be honest with yourself and with them. that's why his poll numbers are in the tank. >> is it a legal question or a legal problem? >> it's a legal problem to the extent that he's fired or dismissed all of the u.s. attorneys in this country. you don't have prosecutors in place that are in charge of these offices. it's been months now since he got rid of everybody. there hasn't been one nomination, one replacement. i mean, i think that's just one part of the government. the entire government is hobbled the by the fact that you don't have a president who's taken charge and put responsible people in charge. >> nicole -- >> go ahead, michael. >> this is robert. just one quick clarification. i don't think the president's poll numbers are in the tank. it depends on how you ask that question.

>> they're historically low, but they are stable. they're at 42%. >> his approval rating has been stuck at 39 to 40%. >> let me -- moderator -- let me -- you're both right. they're historically low, but stable. i want to bring in white house writer for the associate press, julie pace. there's been reporting that the their having a hard time recruiting blue chip talent, because at this point, you'd need counsel and a lot of job security on the other side of your white house adventure. but what do they say about this effort to staff up? >> well, it's interesting, because you had this rush here during the president's foreign trip to focus on beefing up a war room at the white house that was going to be communications and legal and it was really intended to be the mechanism to push back on the russia investigations and this whole entire story line. and what we've seen is that whole effort just stall. it's really on two fronts. and both, i think, are damaging

for the white house. on the one hand, you have just a lack of decision making in the west wing, where you have ideas that come up and they just never get brought to fruition. not just on this front, but also a lot of other policy ideas and a lot of other political ideas. so that has stalled out here. and then you have people who are loyal to the president. and we're not talking about never-trumpers, republicans who are skittish of him. we're talking about people who are loyal to him, who look at the current situation and say, you know what? i'm willing to be supportive, but maybe i'm going to be supportive from the outside. maybe the best move for me is not to jump into the fray in the white house and immediately need goat counsel. so, having both those things happen side by side, is leaving them in a situation where they are lacking allies and they're lacking the mechanisms to both defend the president against a lot of these investigations and allegations, but also lacking the mechanisms to push forward a proactive agenda and move on some of these things that his base really does want to see him follow through on. >> and michael schmidt, just

talk about how all-consuming an investigation is for any entity under investigation. i mean, when the fbi and a special counsel wants to look at everybody's everything, their e-mails, their contacts, and you have a campaign apparatus, if you can call it that, a transition apparatus, and a white house, that's a pretty massive undertaking. are they, at any level, do you think, in any sort of stages of acceptance or of producing what they need to produce, when this kind of investigation intensifies to the stage it is now? >> well, you saw last week that the white house said that questions about the russia investigation would be referred to outside counsel. and that the white house wasn't going to handle them anymore. they kind of began to push that off to the side. the question will be is how cooperative the white house is going to be with mueller. this is something that is going to go on for a very long time. mueller wants to turn every stone over. he wants to make sure that he gets to the bottom of everything, because he knows

this will be the authoritative investigation and report on this matter. he knows how much attention is being given to it. so it's something that could drag out for a very, very long time. and the white house will have to figure out its strategy towards the investigation and towards other things. towards its regular agenda. and you can see where the investigation will soak up a lot of time and energy. >> by the way, there's a legal playbook for this and there's a communications playbook for this. we went through eight years of this in the clinton administration. you do what you need to do to comply. you have lawyers working on that. and from a communications standpoint, you push people off of that prospect so you can keep people focused on the american people. >> julie pace and michael schmidt, we'll let you guys because you guys are actually on deadline. thank you so much for spending some time with us. coming up, the gop bracing for a direct hit in the midterms. mounting concerns that no progress on a conservative agenda could equal a wipeout. also, new reporting from nbc news about the woman who

allegedly leaked classified information about russia and got arrested for doing it. what we're learning. and the war of words with the mayor of london continues for a third day with donald trump jr. now smacking back. garfunkel (instrumental) is that good? yeah it's perfect. bees! bees! go! go! go! [ girl catching her breath } [ bees buzzing inside vehicle ] the all-new volkswagen atlas. with easy-access 3rd row. life's as big as you make it.

what's the best way to get v8 or a fancy juice store?s? ready, go! hi, juice universe? one large rutabaga, with eggplant... done! that's not fair. glad i had a v8. the original way to fuel your day. did you know slow internet can actually hold your business back? say goodbye to slow downloads, slow backups, slow everything. comcast business offers blazing fast and reliable internet that's over 6 times faster than slow internet from the phone company.

say hello to internet speeds up to 250 mbps. and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more a month. call today. comcast business. built for business. i would hope it would be some time in july that we can get the this can bill moving, because then we've got to deal with the budget. we've also got to deal with tax

reform. so, these things are all stacked up, waiting to go. they're kind of like those planes stacked up on the tarmac, waiting for the air traffic control system to get modernized. >> trump's legislative agenda backing up like airplanes on a tarmac, according to republican congressman, john faso. the russia investigation eating up trump's time and attention as his legislative priorities move to the back burner. nbc's kasie hunt is on capitol hill with us following all of this. it's hard to keep up with all the progress they're not making. >> yeah, that's right, nicole. look, they had a very ambitious agenda when they started this year. health care was supposed to be on its way to being doing. we were already supposed to be done rewriting the tax code. instead, the white house is putting a timeline that puts that tax reform bill closer to the fall, to thanksgiving time, than it does to the end of the summer. the white house is now talking about not working with democrats on fracture, which is a little

bit difficult, knowing how things work up here, to even understand how would begin with that. and it also kind of shows you just how far things have fallen. that was something that democrats really talked about wanting to be able to do with the white house. but i think more than anything, this kind of parade of distractions s is something t is really, getting under the skin, i would say, of republicans here on capitol hill. some of them have an understated way of saying it. take a look at what mitch mcconnell said to say earlier today when he tweeted -- twaubd t talked about the president's tweets. >> domestic focus, however, is on the president's tweets. can you -- >> is on what? >> the president's tweets. the continuing tweets by the president. can you discuss this? >> i've only said what i can say before. i'm not a fan of the president's tweets and that still remains my view. >> reporter: "i am not a fan of the president's tweets," says mitch mcconnell. who, of course, is person charged with kind of trying to shepherd this entire legislative agenda through the senate.

there's some indications, nicole, that he might want to try to force a vote on the health care bill. he is, privately, aides are said, set a deadline of the july 4th resource to try to get a vote on the senate bill. they are not finished writing the bill yet and he would still have to count the votes for it. at this point, they want to at least get some work done on some other priorities. >> casie, i would pay any amount of money to send mitch mcconnell sent out a tweet or read donald trump's tweets. our panel's back, along with steve kornacki at the board. one republican consultant who's a veteran of presidential campaigns, who's worked on congressional races, who is working right now on congressional races says it is a foregone conclusion that republicans will lose the house if they don't pass anything by the summer. >> here's the fear here if you're a republican. we've got some new numbers we can show you. if you're a republican member of congress, the fear is you're the ones left holding the bag if there's nothing to show for

these first two years legislatively. so compare march with the new numbers. back in march, if you asked voters which party do you trust more to handle the economy, big bread and butter issue there, look, republicans had a very healthy advantage at the start of donald trump's presidency. look, in just a couple months, that advantage has all but evaporated. they were up 17 points in march, now it's negligible. a three-point edge for republicans. how about this? this can. this is where republicans have tried to take action. they had a slight advantage on this issue back in march, which party do you trust more now? completely upside down, a double digit edge for democrats. think of that, economy, health care, these are the kind of issues that people vote on. ask the generic ballot. if the election were held, which party would you vote for for congress. new numbers, democrats enjoy a 43-39 edge over republicans and nicole, we can assess donald trump's political health. that might be a separate subject

than the health of his party in these midterm elections. donald trump will not be on the pl ballot next year. whatever powered donald trump seemed to power republicans at the congressional level, but they're on their own in 2018. >> it reminds me of mission impossible. if the elections were tomorrow, would the democrats take back the house? >> i'm not certain of that. you've got to keep in mind you've got lines drawn in each of these districts largely by republican-controlled state legislatures. a lot of them are being challenged in court for racial gerrymandering and they're losing those cases. but going -- if we had to do it today with all of those lines, i think it's a toss-up. one thing i disagree with steve i think donald trump is going to be on the ballot. his name may not be there, but i think he is going to be on the ballot. and if things continue in the spiral they're in right now, our chances go up. >> so the person who told me it was a foregone conclusion that if nothing is done on the legislative agenda by this summer, that republicans are

looking at a very dire midterm. he thought republicans would lose the house by one or two seats. are the democrats really -- leave the politics out of it for a second, but are they seizing the leadership opportunity here? >> i mean, rhetorically, yes, but the fact of the matter is -- first of all, anybody who tells you it's a foregone conclusion doesn't remember what happened in the last election. so i don't think anybody is going into this election feeling like they have it in the bag. but, look, the president has had ample opportunity to advance his agenda. he's had ample opportunity to broaden the base of his party and reach out and lead. he hasn't seized it. he's been solely focused on the core of the core. the 35, 36, 37%. and all of his policies and in fact all of his rhetoric seemed to be geared towards that group. and i just don't think it's sufficient. independents, my guess is, have basically left him. >> well, they've soured.

there are still some with him, but they've certainly soured, which is why the numbers are as low as they are. >> and i would also guess democrats are about as energized as they've been in recent memory now. and certainly more so than they were on election night. >> my point is, i think they're energized, but bad news about trump, aisi'm not sure they're leading in their own right. up next, the 27 words that donald trump didn't see in his address to nato last month. the reporter who's got the big scoop of the hour, she joins us next. dental professionals recommend using an electric toothbrush. for an exceptionally fresh feeling choose philips sonicare diamondclean. hear the difference versus oral b. in a recently published clinical study, philips sonicare diamondclean outperforms oral-b 7000, removing up to 82% more plaque and improving gum health up to 70% more. its sonic technology cleaning deep between teeth. from the most recommended sonic toothbrush brand by dental professionals. switch to philips sonicare today. philips sonicare. save when you buy now.

philips sonicare. "how to win at business." step one: point decisively with the arm of your glasses. abracadabra. the stage is yours. step two: choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly and win at business.

the 27 words president trump wouldn't say in his speech at nato headquarters. quote, we face many threats, but i stand here before you with a clear message. the u.s. commitment to the nato alliance and to article 5 is unwavering. susan glasser from politico just dropped that report moments ago. she's here with us now. the one reporter who files in

the 4:00 hour and has my affection forever and ever and ever. along with former u.s. ambassador to russia, michael mcfaul, also an nbc russia affairs contributor. and our panel is back with us, robert traynham up there on the moderator. we'll get to you in a minute, because our friend, sean spicer, weighed in on this. susan, i'm not going to ask you how you got it, but how remarkable this was in and then taken out. >> it's such a simple sentence, right, nicole? but it's one that all of president trump's top advisers have themselves had to use in recent days. in fact, vice president pence doing what sources described as cleanup duty to me, repeated almost verbatim this exact same sentence that should have been in trump's nato speech, but wasn't, just last night, at a speech here in washington, d.c. clearly, there is a gap between what the president himself and perhaps the nationalist advisers like stephen miller who offered the speech believe, and what people like h.r. mcmaster, the

national security adviser, jim mattis the defense secretary, are very much hope that the president could put this nato issue behind him by goings to brussels and just uttering these 27 words, but that was not to be, honestly. >> and susan, i was in touch with the traveling presidential entourage the day the speech was given, and i was told that even on the road, they were having to deliver this message, one on one, to all of the leaders, because they didn't say -- all they needed to hear with all of the questions swirling about the president's orbit and his team and potential ties and coordination and communication, whatever you want to call it with russia, all they needed to hear were these 27 words. so when he omitted them, they spent that whole stop communicating 101 what he refused to say in front of the came cameras. any explanation as to why? >> not only that, but in fact, you know, you saw sean spicer at the briefing today, claiming that it didn't really matter

that he didn't say these explicit words, because it's explic implicit in his attendance at a nato summit. and that's obviously not the case. it has opened up not only a rift inside of nato and you've seen western european allies like angela merkel and emmanuel macron expressing concerns about president trump's foreign policy ever since that meeting. but, obviously, now his own credibility of his advisers is seriously at risk. they've spent months reassuring our nervous allies that, don't worry about it, president trump is moderated, he no longer thinks that nato is obsolete. he's going to come to brussels for this summit meeting. and you'll see, he'll commit once again to this. and so then when he failed to meet the expectations that were set for him by his own team, then, of course, that's what's created a frenzy ever since. i had a very senior diplomat just today from a major u.s. ally, tell me, you know, really, in sorrow, this just makes their job so much harder. >> ambassador mcfaul, you've

represented this country around the world. how much more difficult is that job when the white house press secretary goes out and basically says, words don't matter. even when those words are that the united states of america will continue to stand by the allies that frankly, we're the only ones who have cashed out on article 5. after 9/11, it was the united states of america who asked people to go to war alongside our troops. so it's probably viewed with a whole lot of confusion and disappointment look america's allies. >> well, i've represented this country abroad, but i've also written presidential speeches. i've participated in that process, when i worked at the white house for president obama. and the biggest mystery to hear is how did it get cut? and if you're the national security adviser, that undercuts your credibility now, not only within the u.s. government, but abroad. because people don't believe that you speak for the administration anymore. but secondly, just something

susan said, what is the upside for american national interests to take out those 27 words? i can understand sometimes when the president is speaking to his base and therefore needs to offend those abroad, because he needs them to hear things. but i don't think his base is concerned that he took those words out or not. all this does is make sure that every meeting he has with a nato ally now to the rest of his first term, the first subject is going to be about this. words do matter and the absence of words matter. >> robert traynham, i want you to watch saern sean spicer with. >> we've commented before, the president's speech, the top talked about article 5, we were at a nato article 5 commemoration. the idea that we would recommit ourselves to something that werl clearly there to celebrate seems a bit silly, but i don't know about the contents of the speech, but i think, frankly, it's a bit of a silly

discussion, because as we addressed at the time, the president's presence at an article 5 commemoration and his discussion about nato invoking article 5 for the first time ever after 9/11 pretty much speaks for itself in terms of our commitment to both nato and all 13 articles that make up being part of that treaty. >> robert, you're a kind and generous person and i'm sure you're a good and loyal friend to sean spicer, but communicators have to hue to little things called facts and do you think sean spicer strains his credibility to an ir repable point by saying things like that? >> yes, i think he does. but sean spicer sfapeaks for donald trump and donald trump micromanages his job to the nth degree. >> should he quit? he's saying that it wasn't important for the united states of america to affirm article 5.

should he quit over this? >> sean is a dear friend. sean has to look at himself in the mirror. >> would you quit, robert? >> i would wont work for this president. i believe that words matter. i believe that the truth means something. i have a north star. i have a conscious. and i believe -- first of all, i believe in this country. and i would always put my country first before the party. and i believe this party, my party, your party, nicole, as asked way too much and stretched the truth way too much. if i was white house press sc e secretary, i would tell the truth and respect that podium for all that it represents. i think sean spicer was thinking out loud there. i think he was grasping for straws and trying to put lipstick on a pig. and it's very painful to watch, not only as an american, but it's also painful to watch my friend go through that. >> god bless you, robert traynham. i hope your friend, sean spicer, just watched you just now and if he didn't, i'll send it to him.

what shouldn't democrarepublicao help articulate that donald trump doesn't speak for all of us. are you sad to find see sort of the political conversation on a day like today where it is? >> i am. but i will tell you, the other day, following on the heels of this, the president withdrew from the paris climate accords. and it was an awful day for the country, it was an awful day for the world. >> it was an awful day for your old boss, al gore. >> certainly, but the reality is, much bigger stakes here right now. and i do think it was a similar instinct. some part of it was this america first idea and appealing to his base and appealing to a very narrow portion of his base. to ambassador mccall's point, it has huge consequences. maybe not now, but at some point in his presidency, he is going to need his nato allies and he's going to be looking around the table and steve bannon or steve miller or maybe 25, 30% of the country is not going to be an issue then. it's going to be his allies and that need. one thing i did see the other day around the paris accord,

which gave me confidence is, people are stepping up to fill that gab. they're moving past theth president, they're moving past the administration. they're looking around to mayors, governors, and businesses of both parties around an issue that matters. and i think that has to happen. that gave me some encouragement. i do think there will be people stepping up to fill the gap where presidential leadership is missing or completely awol. >> do you think that jim comey will go up to congress on thursday with any of this sense that the world is watching and the world -- there are other victims -- i mean, we sort of take for granted that america can protect itself in most instances from vladimir putin, but the most sort of vulnerable nato laeallies were the ones th needed to hear that we will protect them. do you think jim comey has this sense of this moment in world history? >> i certainly think so. this is kind of like the john dean moment in the watergate case. he's going to go up there in detail, lay out what trump knew, when he knew it, and what he did. i mean, look.

this whole thing about article 5 has huge practical implications right now. i mean, you can imagine that our own allies will be afraid to provide us with intelligence on terrorism. that we're not going to have the same lines of communication, because everybody's going to be afraid. >> talk about that? do you think our allies will stop sharing intelligence because we invite lavrov and kislyak into the oval office? >> swluabsolutely. i think that's one of the biggests we're facing right now. they don't trust the trrpump administration and they don't trust this president. and you have american universities suffering now because they can't attract graduate students, which are a huge part of their population. i mean, you could go on and on -- >> about the damage -- >> the damage that is currently being done, just because of the horrible reputation that he is creating our allies. >> i want to bring ambassador mcfaul back into the conversation, who's the only one that i know of at the table

who's served as an ambassador. what does vladimir putin make of this? is he laughing all the way to whatever he hangs out? >> wherever he hangs out. yes. i mean, he wants us to be weak. >> are we weak right now? are we weak? >> when we're arguing about whether we're committed to our allies, that's a sign of weakness, of course. when we pull out of an accord that the rest of the world has joined, except for syria and nicaragua, that's a sign of weakness that that's a sign we're pulling back as opposed to being engaged and leading in the world. that's good news for vladimir putin. nato is going to survive well beyond president trump. the paris accord is going to survive well beyond president trump. let's not forget, we have the ability to correct and do the right thing in the long run. but in the short run, yes, these are victories for vladimir

putin. all right, still ahead, the woman now under arrest for allegedly leaking classified information about russia. whatlearning about how she was caught, next. all finished. umm... you wouldn't want your painter to quit part way, i think you missed a spot. so when it comes to pain relievers, why put up with just part of a day? aleve, live whole not part. you want this color over the whole house? there's nothing more than my vacation.me so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want.

booking.com gets it. they offer free cancellation if my plans change. visit booking.com. booking.yeah.

"america" by simon and is that good?strumental) yeah it's perfect. bees! bees! go! go! go! [ girl catching her breath } [ bees buzzing inside vehicle ] the all-new volkswagen atlas. with easy-access 3rd row. life's as big as you make it.

a leaked document given to the website "the intercept" yesterday has raised a whole new series of questions about the size and scope of russia's attempts to infiltrate our 2016 election. but the arrest of the

25-year-old alleged leaker raised a perhaps more immediate one. how is a 25-year-old given so much access to our nation's top spy secrets? to answer that, the one and only ken delaney from nbc's investigative unit. ken, i heard you say something earlier this morning that really stopped me in my tracks. you said there's nothing remarkable at the profile of the kind of person who had access to this information. please explain. zbll su >> sure, nicole. that's absolutely the case. the nsa is a military intelligence agency. enlisted military personnel are 18 to 20 years old. so there are thousands and thousands of young people with very extremely sensitive top-security clearances doing intelligence around the world. they're listening to terrorists in afghanistan, they may be listening to russian diplomats and they are trusted to keep these secrets, you know, finsid the agency. and in this case, that didn't happen. and this person appears to be sort of the latest in a trend of people, you know, chelsea

manning, edward snowden, who have decided that they've seen information inside an intelligence agency that has to be shared with the public. and it's really alarming some of the intelligence officials i'm speaking to. >> ken, what strikes me, this doesn't cross the normal party lines. i was struck by john kerry calling edward snowden a traitor, because edward snowden released information that undermined a lot of diplomat and intelligence operations during the obama administration. we now have, obviously, president trump, in office talking a whole lot about prosecuting leaks like this. but it does sort of scramble the partisan divide. can you talk just more broadly about investigating and prosecuting leakers? it sounds like she was very easy to catch. >> absolutely. and this -- no one should read anything about donald trump's anti-leak agenda into this case, because any prosecutor would have brought this case. the obama administration certainly would have. it fell into their lap. unfortunately, it seems like the intercept made it easier for authorities to catch this person, because they -- in a bit of an responsible attempt to verify the document, they

supplied the document to the agency and it apparently, the agency released the document had been printed out, quickly figured out that only six people had printed it out, and it quickly lead back to the leaker. you're right on sfnowden. snowden's a complicated case. because in people believe had he just leaked the surveillance information about americans, which was troubling to a lot of people, and stopped there, he would have been considered a whistle-blower. but because he leaked so many other information about what the snr nsa does abroad and spying on foreigners, there are a lot of people, both democrats and republicans, who view him as not a legitimate whistle wlo-blower a criminal. >> nick, what does the sort of legal future hold for this young woman? >> she's going to be indicted for espionage. she's a first-time offender, so it's probably not going to be a huge sentence, is my guess. the data that was stolen here is probably not the most important data that we have. but i think what this really points out, if you look at the

pattern here, where a lot of these leaks have come through have been contractors. edward smoednowden worked for a contractor, she worked for a contractor. these are not full-time government employees who have really been inculcated with the importance of holding on to classified information. and you would have thought that with the snowden situation, that the government would have changed this outsourcing of our top security clearances and secrets to people who are consultants. i mean, that just should not happen. i mean, we are outsourcing just too much of our government to private industry, and this is what you get in return, unfortunately. it just isn't right. >> ken, are you hearing anything -- go ahead. >> i was just going to say, that's a really interesting point. it's a persuasive point. but when i speak to intelligence officials about this, they don't agree. there are so many contractors in the intelligence community, and they share the same accesses as government employees. that my sources view it more as a problem of culture. they don't see contractors as

necessarily different from regular employees. what they say is that we have a culture now where people are loyal to agendas other than the organization to which they've sworn an oath and to which they belong. so you have people off in you have people consuming certain things and they decide they want to make it public. you didn't used to see this, but now it seems to be something in the culture that is driving it. >> i think the culture problem is bringing in these contractors. that is the problem. if you have people that come up through the ranks in the military and they are being trained in the proper way to deal with classified information and people who work for the government, they want to contract out our prisons which has all kinds of similar problems. air traffic controllers. certain things that are more

properly left. >> this woman was an air force linguist. >> she spoke six languages and she will defend herself as describing this as something her conscious told her to do. the politics as we talked about day after day are pretty complicated, right? >> absolutely. the contractor thing is a complicated and i don't disagree, but they have to go to creditors. >> thank you very much for being with us. it's a daily thing. thanks for staying free at four. we will talk about that war room we keep getting back to.

i am totally blind. i lost my sight in afghanistan. if you're totally blind, you may also be struggling with non-24. calling 844-844-2424. or visit my24info.com.

what i have seen?. you will... when i...

kill you. the mummy. rated pg-13.

>> it's the greatest hoax of all time. i was there throughout the campaign. we have no dealings in russia. we have no projects in russia. we have nothing to do with russia. >> to me it's without a question. it reads and smells like a witch hunt. >> that was eric trump and donald trump jr. this morning. maybe they will apply for jobs in their dad's war room. today's sources in the white house said there is no war room. zero. it never took off. >> hey there, nicole. that is what source here are saying. they bottom line there was a lot of talk that was going to be headed up by steve bannon and reince priebus and it never

materialized. the thinking is that they needed to outsource this russia controversy. so that the president and his legislative team could focus on the agenda there. the bottom line is this never gained traction. what are they going to do and how are they going to provide rapid response? they continue to insist that they are going to refer all requests to the president's outside council. they will of course be monitor ing the pardon me and we have been talking throughout the hour and the day throughout him tweeting about it himself. he had mitch mcconnell reiterating he doesn't like when the president tweets and he had a number of legal experts. will he do that on thursday? we will have to wait and see. in terms of counter programming, he has a big speech that day.

the president's private council, the private reporting, he heard he is trying to add to his legal team. does mark return press calls? i know one of the people reached out to him. i would anticipate to be fair, he is getting an avalanche of press calls and he is probably sifting through them with his team and he is looking to expand his team. obviously the desire to get answers is quite robust. >> if you are watching, return kristen welker's phone calls.

i understand that having people -- we know that nothing drives donald trump more mad than bad press. others have to do with an unwieldy client. >> some of the mixed messaging that you have seen and the fact that you have the communications team going along one track and the president seems to want to take his communications into his hands. that has been a challenge. as you know, they have been looking at his former campaign staffers even as they think about pr. the likes of cory and david to potentially help with messaging. those two were spotted at the white house. they are looking outside to potentially steer messaging as they enter into what will be a complicated next several weeks. >> robert, can you think of anyone that you and i worked

with over the years in republican politics who would take a job in a donald trump war room? >> no. no one at all. >> really? >> no. can you? >> no. no, i can't. what legal exposure would there be? >> it would be terrible. you would have a client who wouldn't follow your direction. he would be tweeting and you would be telling him not to tweet. you tell him not to. >> he would bang it out. >> for would be a nightmare. donald trump has a reputation in the legal community in new york that he doesn't pay his bills. he stiffs lawyers like he does contractors. >> if his lawyers can't take his phone away from him tomorrow while comey is testifying, they should get malpractice. republicans say a lot of this damage, they have to accept it's coming right from him. putting your kids out there, you

have done crisis work. michael has done it. you need advocates. they need to defend him. that's what you are laughing about. >> you can't name any. you are invited back any time. thank you to kristen welker. thanks to our panel. mike feldman and susan. that does it for this hour. "mtp daily" starts now. if it's tuesday, when it comes to twitter, can you just say no? tonight, the fog of trump. is the constant chaos turning into republican fatigue with the president? plus a top democrat said there is a lot we don't yet know about russian hacking of the election