so don't worry about it too much. just a little bit of a set back. no records set today. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00. news this hour that president donald trump was winning it when he spoke yesterday of fire and fury in pyongyang. a report out this afternoon from "the new york times" is providing details about the moments leading up to the saber rattling heard around the world. according to the times, the paper in front of the president was a fact sheet on the opioid crisis. the subject of a briefing the president attended prior to making those inflammatory statements. "the times" said that the ad libbed reflect reflects an unsettled approach to one of the most dangerous hot spots in the world as mr. trump and team debate diplomatic, economic and military options. the president's words also sent his national security team into damage control mode. >> i think americans should

sleep well at night, have no concerns about this particular rhetoric of the last few days. what the president is doing is sending a strong message to north korea in language that kim jong un would understand. because he doesn't seem to understand diplomatic language. i think the president just wanted to be clear to the north korean regime that the u.s., you know, unquestionable ability to defend itself, will defend itself and its allies. i think it was important that he deliver that message to avoid any miscalculation on their part. >> let's get right to peter baker, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times" who co-authored that report with glenn flush and josh letterman, just back from traveling with secretary of state rex tillerson. peter baker, i want to read something else from your piece. because when it hit, it took us all by surprise. these were the questions we were asking you at this hour yesterday and you have them answered in less than 24 hours

but you write among those taken by surprise was john kelly the retired four star general who has just taken over as white house chief of staff and has been with the president at his golf club in bedminster, new jersey, for his working vacation. stunning to me that the white house chief of staff didn't see word for word verbatim exactly what the president of the united states was going to say when he drew a red line for north korea. >> yeah. that's exactly right. they knew he'd talk about this obviously. they knew that this was an issue that reporters would almost certainly ask a question about and they did. and they knew the tone he'd take. they understood he would be tough. they didn't know he'd use these particular words. i think there was a surprise on the part of john kelly and other advisers and those who -- like secretary tillerson that you just showed. i think the -- i think they were surprised. not that they didn't know he felt this way.

to say them out loud in front of television cameras in front of the world was an es ka whattory step that went further than they had expected. >> let's just hit pause and talk about how abnormal this is. george w. bush had a lot of feelings about the iraq war. i'm not holding that out as an example of anything but in terms of a paper process when a president makes a statement about a nuclear adversary in the walk-up to what may be a military conflict, i mean, you covered the white house in which i worked. condi rice, rumsfeld, dick cheney, an interagency process would have taken place. they would have pored over every letter and every word that would have been vetted by the national security team. how is that not a process that the new chief of staff has put in place yet? >> look, this is not the way that the president rolls. he has a strong feeling for how he operates, how he likes to communicate. he doesn't want to be handled in

that way. they did have discussions with him. they did talk through the current state of affairs but the president then decided to take it the direction he wanted to take it. he's very frustrated that he didn't get more credit, that there wasn't more tension paid to the -- attention paid to the fact that the u.n. voted to impose more sanctions and he has a sense of kim jong un and he needed to speak from the position of strength so that kim jong un would understand him in terms that he himself might have used himself. >> let me press you on that. so donald trump believed that he understands kim jong un better than the entire national security establishment? talk about that a little more. >> well, it wouldn't be the first time he said things like that. remember he said during the campaign he understood the war in the middle east better than the generals did. he has a very strong sense of his own -- his own, you know, feelings about these issues. his own strong sense about his own grasp of what's at stake.

you know, he looks at kim jong un in the same way he looked at rivals in business and, you know, entertainment businesses. he thinks that he can, you know, if he's doing to strike any kind of bargain, if there's a negotiation he's taking the maximalist position from the very start so he has room to maneuver. >> do you think he understands the gravity of negotiating? i remember after a terrorism attack and he was interviewed and who do you turn to, where do you get advice and he said my own big brain. do you get any sense that the gravity and the difference between negotiating with adversaries or competitors in business has set in for this president, that kim jong un is a potentially the leader of a deadly regime with missiles pointed at american allies with tens of thousands of u.s. troops perhaps in harm's way if this goes south? >> yeah. i have been struck that he

hasn't actually used this kind of language before now. in fact he's been relatively for him at least restrained in his comments on north korea for the first six months or so of his presidency. he's clearly losing patience. he's clearly decided to give into the more provocative habits. you're right. this is not what a previous president would have done. most would have issued firm responses. something that jim mattis did today. look, we have the capacity to win any war and don't forget about that, north korea. the language, the chilling almost apocalyptic language that the president chose was to get attention and it did. >> josh letterman, we heard the secretary of state tillerson, i know you're back from traveling with him, and he seemed to be in the words of nbc's peter alexander earlier this morning translating into diplomatic speak or translating donald trump to the rest of the world. suggesting that it was really an

effort to speak in kim jong un's language. i don't know what that means. it wasn't korean he was speaking, but talk about tillerson's effort to translate what -- and let's not sugarcoat this. donald trump promised fury and fire, the likes of which the world has never seen. that has a pretty literal meaning in military circles and it has a pretty literal interpretation and diplomatic -- in diplomatic circles but tillerson made a valiant effort at trying to suffer some of the rough edges. talk about where you think his marching orders came from and whether you think this national security team is firing on all cylinders at this hour. >> i think, nicolle, what the secretary of state was trying to do was take the temperature down a notch. we know that in the aftermath of trump's warning yesterday to north korea that people started to panic, particularly in guam where residents are very

concerned. but in general, there was a sense that gosh, this is something we haven't seen before in our recent memory. we know that secretary tillerson spoke to president trump for an hour in the last 24 hours prior to secretary tillerson coming out and giving that comment today. but then of course shortly after tillerson did that, we saw the president doubling down, repeating his warning from yesterday via a retweet and then talking about the unprecedented strength of the u.s. nuclear arsenal. so not really a move by the president to also take it down a notch. i think there's a tendency for us to try to say, maybe they're doing a good cop/bad cop strategy. this is orchestrated to have, you know, different messages that are unpredictable. i think if we look back at the way this has played out for the last six months it's never a well orchestrated good cop/bad cop thing. it's a chaotic result of everyone not being on the same page and that's the sense we're

getting from u.s. officials today. >> there's no reporting that i have seen but jump me and correct me if i'm wrong that secretary tillerson had any heads up that the president of the united states was about to threaten fire and fury against north korea. is that your understanding, josh? >> that's right. my sources at the state department say that the secretary of state certainly did not know in any detail the level of belligerence that the president planned to use when he made that statement. that took him off guard and that's a situation that the secretary has been in in a number of times in the past. whether having the mixed messages is doing damage to the administration's foreign policy or strengthening it by making it more unpredictable for adversaries as trump has talked about i guess that's in the eyes of the beholder but not something that's very comforting for america's diplomats. >> peter baker and josh letterman, thank you for your generosity and spending time

with us in an hour that's tough on everyone on deadline. peter, you earned your paycheck today. thank you so much, you guys. >> maybe true. >> come back if you learn anything new in the next 51 minutes. medal of honorary rei want issant, jack jacobs and a chief political strategist and partner with ddc and a former senior adviser to jeb bush, matt dowd, former chief strategist, no a columnist and -- now a columnist and author. with us from d.c., "washington post" columnist david ignatius. i should say in full disclosure little minireunion here. three of us hailing from the party once known as the republicans. so let me start with you, because we started the morning together. tell me what someone like

secretary of defense mattis thinks when a statement like fire and fury is being threatened and he hasn't been alerted to those exact words before him. >> well, he thinks that the president doesn't know his hamlet very well. for one thing. it's sound and fury. and if you read the rest of it it would say told by an idiot signifying nothing. probably horrified that the president would use that in the first place. >> do you think secretary mattis was horrified when he heard that? >> horrified because he didn't know about it. i mean, it's one thing that -- to have the president say something to which you have been privy and it's -- you had an argument and said, look, don't say that. he said i'm going to say it anyway and so on. you know about it going in. it's something else to be caught flat footed as was the secretary of state. >> let me play something else that i suspect might horrify the secretary of defense and it's a little bit of a collection of donald trump on nuclear power.

>> look, nuclear should be off the table. but would there be a time when it could be used? possibly. >> you might use it in europe? >> no. i don't think so. >> but i'm just saying -- >> i am not taking cards off the table. >> nuclear is just -- the power, the devastation is very important to me. >> you're ready to let japan and south korea become nuclear powers? >> if they're not going to take care of us properly we can't be the military and the police for the world. >> the united states has not used nuclear weapons since 1945. when should it? >> well, it is an absolute last stance. and you know, i used the word unpredictable. you want to be unpredibble. >> do you think sell secretary mattis wants the person above him in the chain of command to be that unpredictable? >> no he doesn't. there's no way he can control it like general kelly can't control the president of the united states. kelly took the job, so he could control the people who had

actress to the president but at the end of the day, absolutely nothing can control donald trump or what he says. >> david ignatius, let me ask you to weigh in. we had a debate on this show as this story was breaking and i asked general mccaffrey if he thought there was some is strategy behind all this. he said unequivocally, absolutely not. you wrote though about the question about what impact it might have on china. just weigh in for us on the statement because we're happy to have you today and that news broke in our hour yesterday. but also on the consequences on what the world hears when the president talks about fire and fury and we learn less than 24 hours later that his secretary of defense and his secretary of state and general kelly his new chief of staff and his national security adviser did not know that he was going to use words that send very clear and distinct messages in military and diplomatic circles. >> i think there's a strategy and the strategy is to make

china convinced that if china doesn't help the u.s. diplomatically to resolve this, meaning open talks for a denuclearized korean nuance, we'll pursue other options. we'll pursue military options if necessary. that strategy requires china to think that trump really means its. the threat to go to war against north korea is always a little bit hard to sustain because it would be clearly disastrous for our ally and south korea, perhaps for our ally in japan. the game is to be credible in making that argument. i think as other panelists have said it's impossible for the people who work for donald trump to control what he's going to

say or do. i think general kelly when he took the job, i think general mattis, secretary tillerson understand they -- this is an unguided missile. any effort that they made wouldn't be successful. the president wouldn't listen to them. this is his secret sauce, the way he got elected and the way he disrupts to an advantage in the negotiations. we had a classic example that he felt this inflammatory rhetoric would put north korea on the back foot, make the chinese think he was really serious, et cetera. so, you know, look, the consequences of this i think he's ended up frightening allies more than adversaries here. is there a strategy, yes, there is a strategy. if -- is it a plausible idea and i think, yes, the chinese have shown by their actions, most recently in the u.n. vote over the weekend for more sanctions on north korea that they -- that

they are willing to do more. will they do as much as trump wants? that's really a stretch. that's i think the basic problem with this strategy. >> david ignatius, thank you so much for spending some time with us. matthew dowd, let me get you to weigh in since you're the celebrity guest today. very generously on loan. from our friends across the town. let me just ask you about the character of a president who would threaten fire and fury without having any respect for his national security adviser, for his chief of staff and for his secretary of state to give them a heads up. >> so the first thing i hope we can end this whole story that keeps developing that somehow donald trump is going to change and be something different than he is, and he has some master strategy he's going to take over the world and make the united states -- let's just end that. general kelly made no difference, every speech, all the statements he made, they made a lot of difference badly in this.

but they weren't planned. to me, if you read a paragraph in the beginning of the newspaper that said this. a bellicose, threatening, emotionally immature, insecure leader did "x," a year ago would you have thought the president of the united states was that person or would you thought that the head of north korea is that person? that's the problem today. when we talk about stable actors and people we can count on in all of this it's hard for me to believe that the people in europe aren't looking at this situation today and who are they more worried about? that's actually an honest question in this time that we have. the other thing that he does and i think -- he has no consent of history. today is the anniversary of dropping the bomb on nagasaki. when he announced that transgender people were no longer to be in the military it was on the anniversary of harry truman desegregating the military. >> it goes to nicolle's point there's no vetting process there. in a normal white house somebody would look at the history of the

issues that are being talked about and make sure that the president and the rest of the staff knew, hey, if we're going to do something on transgender people in the military, we might want to wait a week. >> i bang my head on this table, i did that a lot during the campaign and it actually hurts if anybody is wondering where the bleep are the republicans? >> i think right now the president is moving so fast during a congressional recess that there's not a lot of response -- >> so fast. he's going in one direction. down. >> you see john mccain showing up about that. what's terrifying to the earlier points here, they're now comparing this to the cuban missile crisis. the war and peace, it was carefully chosen words between the president of the united states and we have to illusion we'll hear carefully vetted, appropriate words from the president of the united states. >> i think the challenge that he faces is that, you know, to matthew's point when he's going to increasingly become

irrelevant, his comments to people in the world stage, and they're just not going to take what he says seriously because they're going to start looking to his secretary of state. they're going to look at what the defense secretary says as what the real position of the united states is. and that's going to create its own set of conflicts. >> i think that's a very good point. i think already the import of his remarks are so devalued by "a" their nature, "b" their frequency, "c" their publicity that they're already -- they're not taken at false value but the import is great. >> that leads to the slippery slope. what happens when the president of the united states gives an order that his secretary of defense or his joint chiefs choose not to follow? >> what if he does that? what if he orders a nuclear strike? my understanding from general hagan in the public comments that's a pretty quick time frame between the commander -- >> i'll tell you -- >> you think mattis would defy

an order? >> yeah, i think he would. he would say i'm not doing it. >> wow. >> i think that's -- the only hope i have in this, the only hope i have in this, i think of them as the five linemen -- >> name them. >> haley, general mcmaster, rex tillerson and there's a trip wire. that's my hope that all of donald trump's belligerence and the stuff he does and not reacting -- hoping he doesn't react emotionally the five people are between the american public and something bad happening. >> don't go anywhere we're simply hitting pause. threat assessment. some of the brightest military minds weigh in on the danger we face from north korea and the law plans likely being plan fodzer the president's review. and investigators for special counsel mueller search paul manafort's home. what it means for the russia

investigation. under attack. one of those five people on matt dowd's thin line, the president's national security adviser is fending off vicious attacks from right wing media outlets closely aligned with steve bannon. one prominent newspaper widely read in donald trump's west wing said it's time to question bannon's loyalty to the cause. [vo] progress is seizing the moment. your summer moment awaits you now that the summer of audi sales event is here. audi will cover your first month's lease payment on select models during the summer of audi sales event. "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. ' they've changed how we get around.

and how we meet. our phones have evolved, isn't time our networks did too? introducing america's largest, most reliable 4g lte combined with the most wifi hotspots. xfinity mobile. call or go to xfinitymobile.com. i take exception to the president's comments because

you've got to be sure that you can do what you say you're going to do. in other words, the old walk softly but carry a big stick. teddy roosevelt's saying which is something that should have applied because all that's going to do is bring us closer to some kind of serious confrontation. >> republican senator john mccain says trump drew a red line yesterday when he promised fire and fury and north korea may have already crossed it. responding to trump's bellicose rhetoric with a threat to guam. the u.s. territory in the pacific. joining me now is retired army brigadier general, former deputy director and a senior adviser to the defense secretary ash carter. and colonel jacobs here at the table. i'm going to call you out for your off camera talk and ask you to pick up where you left of. general, do you think we're making too much of this? >> well, i really do. with all due respect to senator mccain, the talk softly and

carry a big stick that's been the policy for the last 15 years. and let's be clear, it has done nothing to stop the north koreans from developing their capability. the focus shouldn't necessarily be on what the president has said, but it ought to be on what kim jong un has said that he has the capability to strike the united states. soft talk is not going to stop him from continuing to develop this capability, to reach not only to the west coast, but to the east coast as well. would i have liked for it to be in more artful terms? yes. but is it trying to convey a message to somebody who understands that kind of attack? perhaps so. >> well, general, let me challenge you a little bit on that point in terms of the language that was used. i mean, i think senator mccain's point was that he's fine with the size of your stick. but let that speak for itself. not the words. i mean, i think that what john mccain was saying is fine.

then go ahead. take out his nuclear arsenal. i don't i this anyone is opposed to what -- think anyone is opposed to what actions are necessary but if you were the sitting secretary of the defense and the presidents made the comments without telling you he'd make them, would you bother that? >> we're not certain about that. i don't think i have heard mattis say specifically that. but let's take your hypothetical that's in fact what happened. they have discussed it at length. more than likely they have had a discussion about how to address this. again, when it was said and how it was said could it have been said better? probably so. but is it the right message to give to the korean dictator which is if you decide to go after guam, if you decide to develop a capability that can hit the east coast of the united states, we're not going to sit by and wring our hands and diplomatically try to bring you to the negotiations. >> so marc jacobson, if we're not going to sit by and wring

our hands, should we as americans prepare for war for north korea? is that where we're heading? >> no. i thought at first i'd agree with mark on this, that we need to dial it down a bit. we understand how to deter a nation that has nuclear weapons and the ability to hit us. we have done this for almost 70 years with the russians. first the soviets and then the russians. we have then do with this chinese and frankly people have to understand even if the north koreans have an icbm with a nuclear warhead and the re-entry vehicle that the bring that weapon to a u.s. city it is not the end of life as we know it. and frankly, what we need to be focusing on is deterring the north koreans from using that. so to that end, was the president's statement -- was it something that helped to defer? well, david ignatius had a point earlier, maybe it shows the chinese were kind of at wit's end so they needed to put more pressure on the north koreans. and the problem was this was not planned, this was not strategic. i think senator mccain is

exactly right. we are seeing some bluster from the president and we are not seeing a concerted effort to think through how would we deter a nuclear north korea with the ability to hit the u.s. without having to go to war which frankly means we have lost. which means we end up with tens of millions of casualties on the korean peninsula and the destruction of that area as we know it. >> it a ea grim picture you paint. but pick a side, general mccaffrey said there was no strategy, matt dowd said that there was no strategy and others think speaking jong un's language is a bit of strategiry. do you think this is the president's impulse, the president's frustration as others have said on this program? >> i think it was his impulse and frustration but the spin we'll see, well, this was a strategic choice of language. no, i'm not confident at all. but i'm less scared about north korea than i am about president

trump and the likelihood that he walks backwards into a war. >> some very powerful words. thank you very much. up next that predawn fbi raid and what it suggests about the direction of bob mueller's special counsel investigation is taking next. oh, look... another anti-wrinkle cream in no hurry to make anything happen. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair works in just one week. with the fastest retinol formula to visibly reduce wrinkles. neutrogena®.

whuuuuuat?rtgage offer from the bank today. you never just get one offer. go to lendingtree.com and shop multiple loan offers for free! free? yeah. could save thousands. you should probably buy me dinner. no. go to lendingtree.com for a new home loan or refinance. receive up to five free offers and choose the loan that's right for you. our average customer could lower their monthly bills by over three hundred dollars. go to lendingtree.com right now.

i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424.

we're following news today that the fbi raided one of paul manafort's homes in search of documents related to his business dealings and financial relationships. both here and abroad. the raid first reported by "the washington post" represents a dramatic escalation in the special counsel's russia investigation. it took place just hours after paul manafort met with investigators for the senate intelligence committee. the spokesman confirmed the search by saying mr. man afort has cooperated with law

enforcement on this and other inquiries and did so as well. let's talk to the author who broke this story and ken dilanian. first to this remarkable report, carol, what struck me is that on the day that this happened, donald trump was tweeting a whole lot of angry stuff about his attorney general, his acting director of the fbi and his deputy attorney general. have you put together the two time lines and does anything make more sense now in light of your reporting? >> well, we can't know what's in the president's mind when he tweets each time, but it seems like more than a coincidence that there's a predawn raid at the home of his former campaign chairman and that same morning not many hours later he's tweeting about how angry he is with his attorney general for recusing himself which led to the probe in the first place. and also tweeting very specifically about the deputy fbi director and his alleged

connections to democratic fund-raisers. you may remember the tweet talked a lot about andrew mccabe and his wife's democratic campaign and the money she had received. so while there's nothing wrong with the deputy director having a wife who's a democratic politician the president definitely feels that this is influencing the investigation and it's just darn interesting that it's the same day as this raid. >> carol, i wonder what the piece sort of means in terms of where the special counsel investigation is heading? >> so good question, nicolle. what we can piece together, you know, we broke this story in the morning just letting people know about the raid, we did some more reporting. it seems like a -- it was a very broad subpoena for a lot of different personal records. and it was a requirement that he turn over a lot of things that have to do with his bank and personal finance and tax records and that raises a lot of questions about whether or not

they're looking more closely at funds he received. as you know his firm was paid quite a lot from ukrainian businesses and to lobby on their behalf and there maybe as well a curiosity about how well he reported that information. but on the part of the investigators. to me this step this is two things that are very important. one it's saber rattling. it is saying we are coming for you. it's almost like the atmospherics of trying to let someone know that the fbi has you in their sights. and number two, it is very significant because you don't go to someone's home with no notice and a search warrant unless you have convinced a judge that there's something very important that you need and you may not be able to get it any other way than with no notice. >> ken dilanian, let me bring you into the conversation and

ask you to pick up that thread. it was my perception or my belief that paul manafort was cooperating and being responsive to subpoenas. what could they have been looking for that they might have been afraid would disappear without a predawn raid? >> well, your perception, nicolle, is exactly the message that paul manafort and his lawyers were trying to transmit to the public, he was cooperating. in fact the day before the raid he appeared voluntarily before the senate intelligence committee. the fbi believed he wasn't fully cooperating. sources tell me the only way -- reason that the fbi would do this kind of thing, the special counsel, if they believe the cooperation had broken down. after all, as carol said thai had to convince the judge that there was probable cause to believe a specific crime had occurred and that evidence related to that crime could be found at this location. and mr. manafort's -- at his residence. that was a much higher standard than the grand jury subpoena. it suggests that the special

counsel has special crimes in mind with regard to mr. manafort and our reporting today from nbc news, my colleague tom winter, that this involved manafort's activities in ukraine and cyprus and elsewhere around the world. his banking and financial records so it shows that the mueller investigation is looking broadly at financial relationships among manafort and potentially other trump associates as part of its efforts to determine how russia influenced the presidential electen. >> all the talk about mike flynn is around payments from turkey. this predawn raid that we learned about from nbc's reporting it from carol's reporting is about money, ukrainian money. the red line that donald trump suggested and his lawyers suggested they might draw was around trump businesses. are these dots -- is this investigation following the money and is that something that is making donald trump and his associates nervous? >> absolutely, nicolle. look the fundamental premise of

this investigation, one of them is that russia -- did russia seek to influence the trump orbit and trump associates with sweetheart financial deals, financial arrangements going back years? of course the fbi and special counsel have to look into that and of course that involves probing the financial dealings of paul manafort, mike flynn and potentially the trump family. and if donald trump feels like that's out of bounds it seems clear that robert mueller doesn't. another message that this raid sends is that mueller is treating this like any other investigation. he is showing no special deference because this involves associates of the president of the united states. >> thank you so much for spending some time with us. we're grateful for both of your reporting. sarah taylor, we worked in the white house that was under investigation for the leaking of valerie plame's name. it's a stressful time but i don't remember anybody ever giving fitzgerald any marching orders. i don't remember anybody talking about firing the fbi director while that investigation was

going on. i can't imagine the president who wasn't on twitter, he called it the google, but i can't imagine the president asking anyone to be let go or go easy on anyone. talk about the behavior of the people at the highest levels of government under investigation. >> well, it's stunning to me that they think that they are able to somehow influence this by going out on the news and threatening these folks. these folks should not and do not operate under partisan politics. they're law enforcement officials. they have a job to do. and you have to respect them. whether you like it north, whether you think the questions are fair, it's part of the process. once again, the trump administration seems to believe that they can set the rules of the road and they're not going to be able to. certainly they now are in a position where because they have threatened it they'll never be able to i don't think shut this down. i think, you know, talking about paul manafort to me has been

watching this unfold is really interesting. having gone through this, when you like or respect the people you're being asked about, when you interview with these folks, you answer those questions, you answer them honestly and you say nothing else. let's not forget that paul manafort was not treated very well on the way out the door by the trumps. particularly eric trump. he went on fox news and poured cold water on the story that manafort had resigned on his own accord. i wouldn't be feeling comfortable if my last name was trump. >> bob mueller is eliot ness and they're in the scene of the untouchables, they have the documents. the reason why money is important because money signifies motivation. because in all of this, all of these why did people forget about meetings with the russians, who did they meet with and all of that there's a motivation somewhere in this. in the end, this -- this fiction that the -- that donald trump

and his people say well, he can investigate collusion, but not money. keep in mind, al capone wasn't pros cued for murder or -- prosecuted for murder or selling illegal alcohol. he was prosecuted for income tax evasion. all of these things with a circle around this no way that i can draw a line on i. if a police officer pulls over a car for speeding and you have a bunch of stuff in the back seat that's stolen, no i didn't pull you over for that. you'll be arrested for that. >> let's bring in matt miller. a former chief spokesman for the justice department. let me get you to weigh in on all the news we have been talking about in this conversation. both the fbi raid and what you think that big headline represents in terms of the investigation and what we have been talking about around the table about following the money. >> yeah. i think you're absolutely right. i think what we can take from this is paul manafort is certainly a subject of this investigation. he's edging his way being a target of the investigation. i want to pick up on something sarah said a moment ago, if i was the president i wouldn't be

good about where manafort stands right now. there's typically one golden ticket available for people. there's one person who is there the first in the door to cooperate and tell everything they know. they get a reduced sentence, they get potentially even no jail time. if you're out on the outside right now, is paul manafort going to have that golden ticket, is mike flynn going to have that golden ticket? mike flynn is going to watch the pressure that paul manafort is under now having his house raised and wonder how much is paul manafort going to take before he flips and starting talking to mueller. based on this raid, based on getting a judge to sign off on probable cause, there's a good chance he has that wide availability. >> flynn has been trying to sell information in exchange for immunity. he said on the very first day his name popped up as a possible problem child. he said i'm ready to talk. >> and it was denied by the committees, right? he asked for it from the committees.

>> a predawn raise is something you do if you trust the cooperation of the person who claims to be cooperating. this is something you do if you are afraid that he'll destroy document, his laptop will fall into the swimming pool. >> up next as the country faces the national security crisis, the rift between the president's national security adviser and his chief strategist is intensifying. now a prominent newspaper is stepping in. coming to hr mcmaster's defense and calling out steve bannon.

it is no secret to anyone who covers this white house that long simmering tensions between steve bannon and national security adviser mcmaster have spilled out into the public. today's topic says quote policy brawls are routine in any white house and lieutenant general mcmaster can surely handle his

corner. the issue for mr. kelly and mr. trump is what to do when disagreement inside the white house turns into vilification of his staff from the outside. rather than question the general's loyalties, perhaps mr. kelly should question mr. bannon's. the former breitbart publisher has been a white house survivos. but he's been responsible for much of the dysfunction. i have been aware of the efforts on the part of steve bannon for months and months and months to undermine hr mcmaster who came in and replaced general flynn. where steve bannon under flynn's leadership was a part of that national security council. once mcmaster came in he was kicked out. but he invented what was told the kids are calling flynn stones. mcmaster has been trying to get rid of them. trying to professionalize this group of people. you name five people that most americans, many americans feel are sort of the adults around the president. what do you think it says about

the president that he tolerates this kind of internal war? >> well, as you noticed of the five i never mentioned bannon because i don't think he's -- >> not really your type. >> not my type but he's not going to protect the american people from what might happen from donald trump. we can't isolate bannon. s he a reflection of donald trump. trump engages in chaos, he pits people against each other. he loves people to go make arguments outside. he loves people to prove themselves, fall on their sword, come back. sort of a weirdly oddly codependent relationship he has going on. steve bannon would stop tomorrow if trump said to stop. but he's been empowered. >> you called in the code -- i mean, is trump calling this in as a check on the power of the establishment? >> yeah, i think that bannon has in part convinced president

trump that he needs to continue to be feeding this base, this base that bannon represents that the breitbart news represents. >> it's shrinking. >> it is ability to do anythin wants to accomplish, lejs laifbl and politically. >> without bannon, whom does trump have? >> well, he has kellyanne conway. he has his kids. i mean, there are other penal there. >> the latter are probably in big trouble for one thing and they're probably keeping a low profile at the moment. >> but bannon speaks to the remainder of the trump base. the absolutely can shoot a man in the middle of fifth avenue. they will stay with him coalition. >> let me challenge on that, though. donald trump assembled all of his primary wins before steve bannon entered the campaign. so he had become the nominee. steve bannon didn't join the effort -- he joined the effort the same time that kellyanne conway did, really at the beginning of the summer. so he became the nominee without

steve bannon. where does the codependence come from? >> i think that he had not formally joined the campaign, but there's no question that the breitbart empire was firmly on the side of donald trump, firmly against his enemies well before that and that was a critical part of his success in the primaries. >> let me ask you about polling, because you're one of the few people who knows that i actually can't read a poll. you have to tell me what it says and what we have to do. so polling suggests that this president is at his lowest approval rating since he stepped on to the stage. >> of any president. this president and of any president. >> in any country. >> but even for donald trump he's at his lowest point. >> yes. >> and that has been by hug to the desires of the perceived steve bannon base, by pulling out of the paris accord, by advancing the temporary travel ban, widely known as the muslim ban, by rolling forward with the very controversial immigration policies. those are the things that have happened. those were all things on steve bannon's checklist.

if you're in charge of the policies that drive your politician down to 33%, aren't you out of work? >> well, so let's just first say we all at this table get the -- the polls in 2016 were accurate, the national polls that said hillary is going to win by 3 points and she said she was going to win by that. the interesting thing to me of donald trump's presidency, the best moment he's had was the time between laying his happened on the bible and before his inaugural address. every since he laid his hand on the bible has been mostly a bad day for donald trump. >> isn't that like 15 minutes. >> it's all of ten minutes. at that point in time his approval rating -- >> i remember that day. >> he golfed. he golfed a lot. >> since he became president -- >> since that moment it's been a deterioration of his support every single day of his presidency. and now today he's at his lowest point. he's also ootd a moment where only 30% of the people are him.

60% of the people are strongly against him. you cannot have a functional presidency in that environment and you cannot get republicans elected in any kind of real way if that environment is in place in 2018. >> and if you don't have republicans in the house, you might not last. >> they've got almost no time left before they're running for office again, and there's been a great deal -- you guys are the in the business you know better than i. there's been a lot of backpedaling and distancing themselves. >> all right. we have to squeeze in a really quick break. i promise we'll get back to both of you after the break. the president tweeted this p after not about north korea or the domestic terror attack in north korea. he's calling out the top republican in the senate. of course he is. we'll be right back. ♪ hey, is this our turn? honey...our turn? yeah, we go left right here. (woman vo) great adventures are still out there. we'll find them in our subaru outback.

(avo) love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. get 0% apr financing for 63 months on all new 2017 subaru outback models. now through august 31. youany profession,ob, image matters. i want some gray...but not too much. only touch of gray uses oxygen to gently blend away some gray, but not all for that perfect salt and pepper look. satisfaction guaranteed. just you and the look you want. just for men touch of gray looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor.

♪i'm living that yacht life, life, life top speed fifty knots life on the caribbean seas it's a champagne and models potpourri on my yacht made of cuban mahogany, gany, gany, gany♪

♪watch this don't get mad (bell mnemonic) get e*trade and get invested

our new president has of course not been in this line of work before, and i think had excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the democratic process. >> that didn't sound so mean to me, but donald trump thought it was mean, because he attacked him at 2:12 today on twitter, of course. writing senator mitch mcconnell said i had excessive expectations, but i don't think so. after seven years of hearing repeal and replace, why not done? he then sent someone named mr. ska conveniento out to attack him called more excuses from senator majority leader. must have needed another four years in addition to the seven years to repeal and replace

obamacare. and you know how the rest of the story goes, sarah taylor. all of trump's surrogates go out and attack part of the republican establishment. >> sean hannity did it as well last night. >> how is this working out for donald trump? >> well, this is did you remember than going out and saying we're going to use fire and fury in north korea in my mind, because politically, you know, it's his only lifeline are the republicans to congress to get something through and passed in congress. and to keep a republican majority, because if he loses that republican majority, the trump white house thinks that life is difficult now in these investigations, just wait till democrats are in charming. >> yeah. you haven't met henry wax man. go ahead and tell me how you think your old boss, john boehner, really feels when he watches trump rail against republicans who have largely had his back for the did he tackle that volleyball the first six months of his presidency. >> attacking michl is the most gob smacking stupid thing the

president has done yet and that's saying quite a bit. if he's going to get anything done, he's going to get help from republicans on the whil. plus his accomplishment list to date is supreme court justice gorsuch. and that was mitch mcconnell. >> it shows a tremendous ignorance of how the process works as snosh mcconnell said. a good example is when he talked about he single-handedly upgraded our nuclear arsenal and we all know it hasn't been done. >> and b., obama starred it. he's here because he's on book tour. just some closing thoughts about the president as tactics, his use of twitter to attack republicans. >> first, there's a whole parted of the book where i talk about what it means to be a strong person, right. and i think donald trump has a weak person's idea of what being a strong person is. his idea of strength is bullying. the other thing which harkens

back to the korea situation. to me the entire thing of north korea and south korea is we're using the same stuff that created this problem to solve the problem, and it won't do it. >> so fun to have you here. >> great to be here. >> my thanks to everyone that joined us. a new way is fantastic. go order it on amazon. that does it for this hour. "mtp daily" starts right now. hi, chuck. >> my, is nicole. i thought we were going to be like physically handing off studios. >> where are you? >> i don't know where you are. i know where i am. >> you know where i am. this is like who is on third, who is on second. i messed it up. >> exactly. >> have a good show. >> thank you. if it's wednesday, it's a thin red line between rhetoric and warfare. >> tonight, the fire in the fury. should we take the president literally or seriously? >> i think americans should sleep well at night. >> so where does the rhetoric end and the red line begin?