instagr instagram. "deadline: white house" starts right now. >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york where today the investigation into the deadliest terror attack in new york city since september 11th is revealing the kind of threat counterterrorism officials fear the most. a lone wolf who largely self-radicalized, as far as we know. the president wasted no time connecting the deadly attack to his hard-line immigration policies. >> i am going to ask congress to immediately initiate work to get rid of this program. diversity lottery. there are bills already about ending chain migration and we have a lot of good bills in there. we're being stopped by democrats because they are obstructionists. and honestly, they don't want to do what's right for our country. we need strength. we need resolve. we're going to get rid of this lottery program as soon as

possible. we need quick justice, and we need strong justice. much quicker and much stronger than we have right now because what we have right now is a joke, and it's a laughing stock. >> never one to allow a national tragedy to trim his sails, the president started his day by issuing insults on twitter wrighting, the terrorists came into our country through what's called the diversity visa lottery program. i want merit based. the new york senator who represents the state in which eight people lost their lives and 12 more were injured just a little over 24 hours ago responded from the senate floor this morning. >> now, mr. president, i've seen the tweets from president trump. after september 11th, the first thing that president bush did was invite senator clinton and me to the white house. he pledged to do whatever was in

his power to help our city. president trump, where is your leadership? . the contrast between president bush's actions after 9/11 and president trump's actions this morning could not be starker. >> before we dig into all of this with our reporters and guests, let's get the latest on the terror investigation from pete williams. what are we learning at this hour about the driver of that car and the terror investigation that's under way? >> number one, last night, they were not responsive to questions from authorities. he seemed smug about the fact he carried out the attack. today authorities have gone back to the hospital to question him and we're told he is being more responsive to their questions and is starting to answer questions. we don't know the substance of what he's saying, and we probably won't know that for a while, but there is some progress, we're told, being made by interrogating him which is

obviously one of the lines of inquiry that they're engaged in. secondly, in addition to the note -- 24 hours ago, we were looking at the mere fact he had carried out an attack or was accused of carrying out an attack that seemed right out of the isis playbook and came out of the car yelling allahu akbar. so the assumption was it must be a terror attack. now we have additional information about it. there was a note found, the truck that said isis will live forever and authorities have told us that he was looking in recent weeks at isis online propaganda, and some of his friends, as many as two or three years ago, he was starting to express some sympathy for some people who are arrested for terror related offenses saying maybe they're not guilty, showing some sympathy for terrorist goals and aspirations. so it does seem like he is someone who is a home-grown terrorist, someone who was self-radicalized. no indication, they say, that he

was in touch with terrorists overseas and no indication so far, they say, and this is obviously always a big question in these things, that he had any help or encouragement or any foreknowledge from friends he was going to do this. >> and one of the things i've seen conflicting reports about are whether or not he was on the radar of law enforcement. can you explain some of the discrepancies in some of the reports that we're seeing today? >> so what does on the radar mean? in fbi speak it means you're in the fbi guardian computer system as someone suspected of terror aspirations or terror connections. he was not in that system. so as far as the fbi is concerned and the new york intelligence folks are concerned, he was not on the radar. however, he was investigated. he was questioned, i should say, two years ago by a federal agent but not because he was suspected of terrorism. it's because he knew somebody

who had connections to two people who were suspected of terrorism connections. so they simply wanted to know what he knew about those other people. there was never a suggestion at the time that he was a potential terrorist. they just wanted to talk to him in essence as a witness. what do you know about these guys we're interested in? >> pete, i wonder, as a longtime justice department correspondent, what do you make of the president the morning after, less than 24 hours after an attack calling the justice system a laughing stock and a joke. i wonder if you heard any reaction from any of your sources in the justice department or in law enforcement circles to that description of the american justice system that he oversees. >> the people i've been talking to basically are sort of awfully busy with this case and haven't kind of gone on offline if you will, to step back and respond. in terms of the president's and i gather this was something that came up in the briefing as well,

the suggestion that saipov could be treated as an enemy combatant and taken out of the civilian justice system, that seems to be a nonstarter. i can tell you the authorities in new york and the federal and local authorities are moving smartly ahead to file criminal charges. they could come this evening. they could come at the latest tomorrow. so they're moving ahead with it. there's a legal question about whether the president has the authority under the authorization for the use of military force after the 9/11 attacks to declare someone in the u.s. who says i'm with isis enemy combatant. but finally, in terms of the record of the civilian courts, i'd simply say that there is a much better record in the civilian courts of convicting people and sentencing them to severe punishments or even death than there is in the military justice system in guantanamo bay which has yet to reach that conclusion for anybody. >> the southern district of new york is where the first world trade center bomber was

prosecuted, and they have a long record of experience in prosecuting terror cases in the southern district which i assume would be where they would prosecute this case. is that right? >> would have to be. federal law says you could prosecute it in the district where the offense occurred. in terms of other civilian courts, the boston marathon bomb with the courts there. the underwear bomber, faisal shahzad, "the new york times" would be times square bomber -- times square, not "new york times" bomber. >> pete williams, thank you so much. we appreciate starting our show off with you on what is a tragic, obviously, event here in new york city. thank you. joining us now, peter baker, chief white house correspondent, jeremy bash and juan zarate who was deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism under president george w. bush. juan, let me start with you. and let me ask you the same

question i just asked pete williams. it's a long way from standing on the rubble at ground zero and saying, i hear you and pretty soon the world will hear you and take to twitter and attack the home state senator, to call the american justice system a laughing stock and a joke. and to announce really less than, i think, 18 hours after the attack that all democrats are obstructists. what say you? >> yeah, i think it's problematic. i think it's pretty obvious you want the commander in chief at a time of crisis like this when a terror attack has happened on our soil to be a voice of unity. it's a voice of unity that's important not just for the national psyche and for political harmony but also to demonstrate to terrorists who might want to use these kind of attacks to tear our country apart, to drive wedges among social divisions or political divisions to demonstrate, we cannot be manipulated by you. we're going to have a national

unified front in response. and so you don't want to see that. it also clouds some of the serious questions and issues you have to look at in the wake of a serious case like this. obviously, deal with the victims and families and having to end to what's happened in new york itself, questions about the intelligence around this case, the way law enforcement handled it. we don't know yet all the details. whether or not there are networks attached to this individual. i think we're perhaps jumping to too many conclusions about this being a lone wolf. and also the question of immigration which is a serious question. and so all of that gets muddled because we have some sloppy messaging and a message that's not about national unity and protecting the country long term. >> how dangerous for a president to use the hours after a terror attack to go after the home state senator, to call the american justice system a

laughing stock and a joke instead of using those hours to maybe, i don't know, take the motorcade to the embassy and sign a book offering condolences to the country that lost five of its citizens in a terror attack or maybe convene a national security council meeting and talk about how to combat the spread of terrorist content on the internet or, i don't know, pick up the phone and call the governor. we understand this afternoon, the 3:00 hour that he had done that but hadn't done that this morning. i don't know how to differentiate the obliteration of norms that are simply a disgrace and the o'bliteration of norms that make us less safe. how would you put this today, his response to a terror attack? >> it's vitally important that the president of the united states, our commander in chief comport himself in a manner that can bring the country together, make sure our government has effective responses to terrorism and that can be an example for the world so when other world leaders and other citizens look at us and say, how does america

respond to crisis, how does america respond when it's under attack, we can be an example for the world. here i think instead we have partisan comments, factually inaccurate comments about senator schumer coming out of the white house. i think you're right. the tone should be a lot more somber, a lot more about the heartbreak of the event and also the bravery of the first response and the resolve to ensure that events like this cannot and will not happen again. i also think, like juan does, that the immigration issues are very significant, very serious and if we want to have a sober debate about it, we ought to. but let's let the victims of the attack be reunited with their loved ones. let's let the first responders on the scene get a little bit of a break. let's take a national deep breath and figure out the right response going forward. >> peter baker, let's listen to how sarah huckabee sanders responded from the podium after a national tragedy. >> look, this is an unspeakable

tragedy. today is a day for consoling of survivors and mourning those we lost. our thoughts and prayers are certainly with all of those individuals. this is -- there's a time and place for a political debate. but now is the time to unite as a country. there's currently an open and ongoing law enforcement investigation. a motive is yet to be determined, and it would be premature for us to discuss policy when we don't fully know all the facts or what took place last night. >> peter baker, this is a two-part question. let's watch the other sarah huckabee sanders responding the day after a grave national tragedy. >> what's the difference now? >> i said it wasn't appropriate to politicize the conversation, which i don't believe we are. we're talking about protecting american lives, and there are things that this president has consistently and repeatedly talked about, advocated for, pushed for, introduced executive orders for, supported

legislation for time and time again since long before he was even president of the united states. that support this position. it's not a new position. >> peter baker, so when the president wants to exploit a national tragedy to push his immigration policies, then, less than 24 hours later, is certainly time enough to have consoled the victims. but when it's a policy debate, the white house doesn't want to have, as we saw in the sarah huckabee sanders clip we played first, the time should be spent consoling the victims. can you just speak to the blatant, flagrant, hypocrisy of the white house? >> she struggled to reconcile those two very different approaches and they are just a month apart. this is not something said months and months and months ago. this was literally four weeks ago after another terrible national tragedy. she didn't say they shouldn't politicize it. she says we couldn't even have a policy debate. certainly a discussion about

immigration policy is, in fact, a policy debate. that may be perfectly appropriate. that's what people a month ago were saying. it's appropriate to have a policy debate. she said it wasn't. today she's saying it is because the president has had these positions on policies for a long time. fair enough. but i am pretty sure the people for gun control and wanted to talk about that a month ago have had those positions for an awful long time. it wasn't just that he was advocating changes in policy. he was attacking democratic opponents in a visceral way. and in a way that basically made him out to be soft on immigration, soft on national security. if that's not a political debate, it's hard to imagine what is. >> juan, let me bring you back into this and just ask you to speak to this white house and how -- as they get ready to embark on another foreign trip. he's had fixed forrays. he now has another debate at home about his comportment in office. about what bob corker has questioned his stability and

competency for the office he holds. others about how he debases the office. is he heading off on another foreign trip on another weak spot two days after the indictments of three former campaign aides and after a response that invited rebukes from democrats and republicans all day today? and we just saw his white house press secretary engaged in, i don't know how to describe it other than flagrant, blatant hypocrisy. >> yeah, it's a fair assessment. the frustration i have is the lost opportunities, right? there's a lost opportunity here to unify the country. a lost opportunity to reach out to those affected. the argentine government, belgian government. there's a lost opportunity to take in the sympathy and well-wishes from our allies around the world given this event and then to embark on a serious trip to asia with respect to north korea. what gets lost on all of this is the substance.

and this is what i worry about. there is so much important substance in terms of policy that we have to worry about, and we get caught in these debates about style and about politics and formulas as to how the president is communicating. he's losing these opportunities to actually drive the debate. what comes next with respect to isis? we've taken away raqqah and mosul, but the threat is still present. what happens next? we've got the threat of north korea. and our relationship with china and our posture in asia. that's critical to our future. where are we -- we're not talking about any of that. how do we deal with the homegrown radicalization problem? the new information warfare campaigns we're having to deal with on facebook and twitter and russia and groups like isis and al qaeda. none of that gets discussed because we get caught in this political rigamarole around

tonality and the way the president addresses these issues. and it's really a lost opportunity. not just for the president but for the country. >> and how frustrated must his national security team be that last week was lost to an eight-day debate with a gold star widow. this week, as you said, the opportunity that you have in the face of a tragedy. is it much? it's pretty much simply a horrific tragedy. eight families lost everything yesterday. 12 others are badly injured. so it's not just -- at its befrkbest, it's an opportunity. but that he fails to console or doesn't try to comfort the country or have a serious policy discussion. how sort of demoralizing is that for national security team trying to get some momentum behind this trip or as you said serious issues like being on the brink of war with north korea are at stake. >> i think it's really frustrating for the national security team in part because they want the president to show

empathy. they want him to be the unifier. they need him to have that strength both internally and externally. the power of the presidency is very real and so the ability to effect yut policy on hard issues relies on the president's credibility and viability, especially abroad. and then they worry about the fact that the policy issues that they're working on very hard, some of which, and nicole, you and i have talked about, are going the right direction. the afghan policy review was well done, i think. how we dealt with the syrian use of chemical weapons was important. all of that gets lost, and i think the professionals really do get a bit demoralized by the fact those issues aren't the subject of discussion and, instoed stead, we get ought in the debates we're having now. >> well stated. juan zarate, thank you for starting us off. as the president lashes out

at chuck schumer over the manhattan terror attack, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are slamming his response. but is it making matters worse? also ahead -- bashing mueller. why steve bannon is still bending donald trump's ear about the wisdom of taking on the special counsel and how the guilty plea of a former campaign aide raised the stakes for other aides in mueller's web. why the russians would have viewed the men around donald trump as such ripe targets. all that when we come back. i don't want to sound paranoid, but d'ya think our recent online sales success seems a little... strange? na. ever since we switched to fedex ground business has been great. they're affordable and fast... maybe "too affordable and fast." what if... "people" aren't buying these books online, but "they" are buying them to protect their secrets?!?! hi bill. if that is your real name. it's william actually. hmph! affordable, fast fedex ground.

this is a tragedy. it's less than a day than ever it occurred and he can't refrain from his nasty, divisive habits. >> you play into the hands of the terrorists to the extent you disrupt and divide and frighten people in the society. >> i think it's pretty disgusting. certainly not helpful as we try to protect the country to blame individual senators. >> is it too soon to go after senator schumer? >> i don't know that's the way you bring out the best in our country. everyone has their way. >> what would you have liked to see the president do instead of the tweet against schumer. >> trying to express solidarity with those trying to fix the situation. we shouldn't look for blame one day after like this.

>> joining us at the table, jonathan lamiere, charlie sikes, michael crowley and jonathan capehart, "washington post" opinion writer. also an msnbc contributor. jeremy bash and peter baker are still with us from d.c. charlie, you started shaking your head before we came back from that. speak. >> it is like groundhog day. how many lost opportunities do you call a lost opportunity? but it's one of those moments where you'd hope anyone sitting in the office of the presidency would rise to the occasion and the juxtaposition with the way george w. bush handled the september 11th attacks. and it is just so striking that he lacks the empathy to be able to reach out as you pointed out, but also, i'm shaking my head because i honestly -- i can't figure out the eighth dimensional chess play of attacking the minority leader in

the senate by name the day after a tragedy in his home state right as the president is about to push forward a major piece of legislation in the united states senate. i don't get that. >> this is a president who has struggled with empathy. he hit the rights notes after the congressional baseball practice shooting. he did in the national aftermath of the vegas shooting but we've seen him wildly miss, like the puerto rican hurricane. it's donald trump's hometown. this happened just a couple miles from trump tower. a place he knows very well. eight people died. and his first instinct was not to offer condolences to try to rally around his hometown, but yet this morning to go on attack. he only has one speed. he fights, he fights, he fights. >> why, after a terror attack, wasn't there -- i think some of the shine has come off of general kelly and we see him more as someone who enables and in many cases agrees with donald

trump's instinct. why did that national security team i was asking juan zarate about. there are things we can do. sign a condolence book, convene a national security council meeting. he has a goal of defeating terrorism. this isn't off brand for donald trump. why can't he ever stop himself from being self-destructive and destructive to the country? >> it's who he is. his first instinct when any major political event happens is to find an enemy to lash out at somebody, to create a versus b scenario where he's the stronger figure defining himself against a weaker foil. that's just his method. i don't think there's any way you can have sober national security professionals who present him with the papers and traditions who will ever squeeze that out of him. i don't think it's ever going to change. we have been invoking the memory of george w. bush but also think

about barack obama and his theory of responding to terror attacks. don't let the terrorist win by giving them the attention they want. so obama sometimes wouldn't come out on camera. he had a very muted response and he took heat for that. he'd say we can be resilient, roll with this. and i think much as the russians revel in the amount of may rem they've caused, similarly, although much more insidiously and violently, isis loves seeing us talk ad nauseam and yell at each other and divide ourselves over their attacks. that's the risk is that is playing into their hands but i don't think we'll get that message through to trump because he's a fighter and that's what he'll always be. >> jonathan? >> the key thing here is what michael just said. this is all about donald trump. this is about himself. he needs a foil. he protects himself. when he gets attacked, he hits back harder, as he loves to say.

barack obama, george w. bush, bill clinton, george h.w. bush, ronald reagan, jimmy carter, richard nixon, lyndon johnson, these are all men who walked into the oval office and understood from moment one that when they sit in that chair, they come second, if not last before the people of this country, the dignity of the office. and this is a president who couldn't care less about the dignity of the office or, by and large, realizing that he is a leader of a nation. and that they are looking to him for leadership, for comfort, for empathy. he can't give them any of those things. what we're seeing is just sort of this play it by ear presidency when it comes to really important things and then it couldn't care less presidency when it comes to things that -- where the american people are looking to the president for some sign of comfort. and the people of his own hometown could not even get that from him yesterday. >> peter baker, you've had some

reporting, a news story about sort of inside this response. can you talk about whether there were any discussions, whether the staff knew he was going to go after schumer last night on this morning went after schumer but last night started politicizing a terror attack, something he'd done many times before. i think after san bernardino, after orlando. he was on twitter almost immediately. but obviously, he's the country's commander in chief now. are you aware of any conversations at a staff level with him or about his actions? >> i'm not. not before he began tweeting. he said he was watching "fox & friends." this is a visceral response to something he had seen. he sees something on television and gets him riled up, he wants to say something about it and the way he says something about it is through twitter. fox & friends and other conservative media, including breitbart were on this diversity visa program this morning and they were tying it to senator

schumer. this is not something that was briefed to him. he wasn't told the history of this program that there are five sitting republican senators who are currently in the senate today who voted for it including mitch mcconnell. i don't think he -- i don't he think had a briefing before he decided to go out there. once he did, they decided to double down and prepared a speech or some statements for him to make when he met with the cabinet. he came out and said, i've begun the process to eliminate this diversity visa program. he's asking congress to do it because he doesn't have the authority to do it. and then threw out other things more off script. this laughing stock and joke wasn't in the prepared remarks. the idea of sending the suspect to guantanamo was in response to a question from a reporter afterwards. sarah sanders was asked about that. saying, gosh, that sounds like a good idea but he's not pushing to do that, we don't think. it's a visceral response.

it's a gut response. it's the kind of things some of his supporters really want and like out of him, but it goes against the grain of what we've seen in previous presidents in this moment whether george w. bush or barack obama. >> can you speak to what peter baker is describing, a shoot from the hip. >> it's not just that it's tone deaf or political or self-centered or off key. it's dictatorial, autocratic and lunges toward violating civil liberties, suspending immigration, sending people to guantanamo. hefb forbid were we to have a major terrorist attack on u.s. soil that claimed the lives of not eight people but 80, 800, something on the 9/11 scale and heaven forbid that ever happen again. god help us with how this president would respond and the powers he'd accrue to himself suspending almost anything that all americans hold dear. >> peter baker, let me ask if

there were any other messages relaid more quietly from the national security team on the topics you raised. this idea of designating him as an enemy combatant which our own pete williams said was a nonstarter, or on the lack of any sign of unity or any attempt at conveying to the terrorists that we will not be deterred. every president that i can think of sends a message to the terrorists by telling their own publics to go about their lives. if we show our fear, change our lives in any way, they will have won. no message to the people of this country and no message to the terrorists from the president. i wonder if you've heard any messages from anyone else on his national security team or staff. >> no, not like that. i think we hear from him is, you know, for nine months he's been president and predicting this moment would come. this is the first foreign born terrorist attacks we've had on american soil since he became president. he initiated the idea of a travel ban on certain countries. he's talked about extreme

vetting. so for him to see this incident in new york is to him proof that his concern was correct. he in fact, needs to take tough action, needs to run roughshod if necessary over the political system to put in these, you know, safeguards. now that may not be the best way to accomplish it, by attacking the democratic leader of the senate at a time you're trying to make some deals with him, but it is sort of like what you expect to see out of donald trump. and it is, again, what some people would like to see out of him because this is what they voted for. >> this is what governing to the 32% looks like. peter baker, thank you for spending so much of this hour with us. when we come back, the white house is staicking to their lin that a form trump adviser now cooperating bob mueller's investigation had a very limited role with the campaign. what we're learning today about low-level george. that's next. america's beverage companies have come together to

bring you more ways to help reduce calories from sugar. with more great tasting beverages with less sugar or no sugar at all, smaller portion sizes, clear calorie labels, and signs reminding everyone to think balance before choosing their beverages. we know you care about reducing the sugar in your family's diet, and we're working to support your efforts. more beverage choices. smaller portions. less sugar. balanceus.org.

we're learning new details about the man trump described as low level george. that's george papadopoulos, a former trump campaign adviser who we now know to be cooperating with bob mueller's investigation. according to new reporting in "the washington post," interviews and documents show that papadopoulos was in regular contact with the trump campaign's most senior officials and held himself out as a trump surrogate as he traveled the world to meet with foreign officials. the trump posture on this seems to be that george was so low level, he didn't know anything. but on the other hand, their defense for all the incompetence and aidiosy of the campaign is we were so small and so lean that everybody did everything. >> this is what they get as a result of desperately scrambling to form a foreign policy team, having no idea who they were bringing in. and -- but i would say, this

question that he was so low level and so freelanced, there's a lot of communication with the trump campaign. there's definitely feedback along the lines of great work, encouragement. >> you mean like e-mails? >> in the e-mails that were in the court documents as part of his plea deal. and you also just have to ask yourself, why, you know, carter page is making these trips to moscow and has all these relationships with russians. papadopoulos, michael flynn. why is this a theme that keeps recurring throughout the foreign policy team? one time you can dismiss as sort of a weird aberration. this one guy came in the back door when they were desperate and had this thing for russia and maybe you dismiss it. when it's part of this much larger pattern like one instrument playing in an orchestra all playing the same tune, you have to stop and look carefully. don't assume that everything mueller knows was in those court documents yesterday. among other things, what i thought was interesting, last point, is that papadopoulos in

those documents, we never see him reporting back to the trump campaign. i've been told these russians have hillary's e-mails. if you were told you had anything to do with the trump campaign, you'd be telling anyone you could this exciting news. it's not that he said nothing. it's that he did. mueller knows it and he's only giving us a peek of what he knows and he's using that to psyche out some of his other potential witnesses and targets. >> picking up on that, i heard that one of the either reasons or one of the affects of releasing the papadopoulos indictment and the guilty plea was because of the meetings with white house aides either ongoing or taking place very shortly. those are aides that may know about the cover story for the meet meeting that don junior had with a room full of russians. they had all these meetings with all these russians. they either lied about it to the fbi. jeff sessions lied about it in his confirmation hearing and had to correct the record and recuse himself or they forgot about it

the first time they were asked. it's a fabrication that presumes everybody is stupid or blind. >> also, yes, mueller is sending a very, very clear message. cooperate. cooperate soon. tell me the truth, otherwise, you know, i'm going to hammer you like manafort or you can get a nice deal. i find it truly amazing in a year of many amazing things that donald trump is continuing to tweet about this after we know that papadopoulos has been flipped. after we know he may have worn a wire. after mueller has all of this data. and after we know that trump himself may be investigated for obstruction of justice. so what is he doing? he is attacking a cooperating witness in an ongoing criminal investigation which i understand we've had many amazing and remarkable things but that is definitely not normal and it's not smart and i cannot believe his lawyers are not pitching a fit. >> jeremy bash, you're a lawyer. let me ask you to weigh in. >> charlie is right. that's a form of obstruction of justice. he's trying to intimidate papadopoulos and say, hey, guy.

don't testify against me. there will be hell to pay. >> it's giving us a window into the conflict behind us. insiders -- steve bannon among them who is now outside the white house. other trump confidantes who are saying, you need to be more aggressive here. go after mueller. fig are this out. you need to stop this. >> what does that mean? you need to go after mueller. you either fire mueller -- they are having a debate about defunding mueller. that's fake. it's not a line item. it's not mueller's budget on some piece of paper to cross out. why is bannon advocating things that are not achievable? is he that dense or simply throwing things against the wall? >> probably more of the latter. he's a bomb thrower. something he likes to do. he likes to shake things up and be aggressive. ty cobb is telling the president, this is going to be over soon. he's signalling to white house staff, look, this is -- we saw sarah sanders say this earlier this week. this belief this probe is going

to end when all evidence appears to be to the contrary. they are saying cooperate, cooperate, cooperate. and i think we know the president has told people close to him he's growing frustrated with this. this is not his style to -- >> bannon is right because at least to the extent that this investigation poses an extential threat to the trump presidency. >> of course, but they can't line out his funding, though. >> the other flunkies in trump world may be saying it's a nothing burger. this is the real deal. >> let me ask you about something john mccain says. this is a centipede, said john mccain who has served in congress longer than mr. papadopoulos has been alive. some exquisite reporting from peter baker. >> yeah. ty cobb is right. this will end. i don't know about soon, but it will end. the way things are going, it's not going to end in a way the president wants. i go back to what i said in the beginning. the president will listen to

someone like bannon who says take out the flame thrower and go after mueller and all of these people and stop this investigation. >> but what does that mean? >> what it means is if all you care about is yourself and your business organization, then, of course, you would do something like, i don't know, fire the fbi director or actively entertain getting rid of the special counsel. getting rid of robert mueller. if what you care about is truth and justice and the constitution, you do what ty cobb says and you cooperate. you do everything possible to like lower the heat on this so that you may be able to get out of this with some semblance of dignity. but that's not who we're talking about here. >> what you can do as a political strategy is what the clinton white house did to ken starr which is really go after the special prosecutor and turn it as much as you can into a political fight around the legal fight. i'm not saying that's the smart or winning strategy. the funding thing is a red herring. but people like bannon, other like-minded trump allies want to

make this much more of a -- an adhommen in fight against mueller. discredit him. we heard some of this. conflicts of interest, prosecutors on his staff had relatives who had given money. >> then they blinked. they stopped. >> there are some people who want to bring it back. the reason they blinked, it's a tough sell. muell ee mueller, my goodness, consummate law enforcement official. that's a strategy if they are getting nervous or desperate they could turn to. it's not the funding thing. >> how likely is that to work now? >> it will work with the base. >> it will not work with bob mueller, though, who i can attest to the fact he doesn't care about anything written about himself in the press and doesn't follow donald trump on twitter. up next, mueller unloads more documents about trump's former campaign chairman paul manafort. (avo) when you have type 2 diabetes, you manage your a1c,

but you also have a higher risk of heart attack or stroke. non-insulin victoza® lowers a1c, and now reduces cardiovascular risk. victoza® lowers my a1c and blood sugar better than the leading branded pill. (avo) and for people with type 2 diabetes treating cardiovascular disease, victoza® is now approved to lower the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. and while it isn't for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. (avo) victoza® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history

of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and get medical help right away if you get symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so, stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. gallbladder problems have happened in some people. tell your doctor right away if you get symptoms. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion, and constipation. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. ask your doctor about victoza®.

legal documents filed yesterday show new details about paul manafort indicted as part of bob mueller's investigation. federal prosecutors now arguing that manafort presents a serious flight risk noting that he currently has three u.s. passports with different passport numbers and then the last ten years, he's submitted ten passport applications on ten different occasions. all of this part of what prosecutors call his history of deceptive and misleading conduct. something the trump team has purported to know nothing about when they hired him to chair their campaign. charlie, this idea that paul manafort is a bad guy, i think there's an op ed in "the washington post" with this headline. i worked for paul manafort. he always lacked a moral compass. that was widely known in washington. this idea again that the question i put to michael earlier, i mean, that their idiocy and imcompetence is now a

legal defense boggles my mind. >> donald trump said he's going to surround himself with the best people. you have this picture of the campaign that looks like the island of the misfit toys. >> and that's what trump advisers who never went on staff called it. >> right. >> but i also think that the white house defense seems to be along the lines that paul manafort, these charges against paul manafort don't reflect on donald trump because he was a criminal when he hired him as chairman of the campaign. and we couldn't look on wikipedia or talk to people that had been worked with him and his own daughter has texts published where she talks about her father as having no moral compass. it's interesting how many of these people were attracted to the trump orbit and were empowered by trump through the campaign and in the administration. >> jeremy, this is the politics but what are the possible legal risks for not just the president but everyone that now has to go before bob mueller and try to address questions about what

they knew and what the president knew and when he knew it. >> yeah, and when you have a team of folks who fundamentally lack the integrity as we've been discussing, you know, they're not going to be straight when they're interviewed, when they give testimony, and that's goin give testimony and that's going to expose them to more legal jeopardy. it's going to give bob mueller more tools and it will ensnare more people in this legal problem set. >> thars a story in politico magazine which i'm not plugging because michael is here. it was just delicious. it's about why the men -- there were no women dlalds, interestingly. why the men in donald trumps circle were easy prey for the russians. let me read you some of this, michael. it spoke to how with paul manfort that there was a pressure point around money. withed jared kushner, money

might have worked but with are donald trump, ego. >> right. well, i would say that -- think about trumps world in manhattan. everything is big, shiny, kind of like new money. so you start t a the top. i mean, i think you see the attraction that trump has to vladimir putin. it's extravagance rk this culture of oligarchs, the uber rich. you can go down the line. you talk about carter page or even pop top lus. they were sort of j.v. characters that no one had heard of. >> j.v.! you just insulted a j.v. characters all over the world. he lied about his national security credentials. it was a lie. >> for like an afternoon.

>> whether you did it or not, no judgment b judgment. >> no. i'm going to judge. you are trying to present yourself as a foreign policy advisor and you have the nerve to put on a model resume, which it's not but then you have the nerve to lie about it? >> right. >> and barry bennett who employed him before the trump campaign hem employed him and you and i know him. he's a good and reasonable guy. he said that the if he'd been asked for a recommendation, he wouldn't have given him one. he came out of the failed. >> going back to your first question about the problems of people who do not have a moral compass. you have donald trump, this

entire set of folks who lie on a regular basis, who lie easily, gratuitously, who lie pointlessly. now they're in bob mueller's world where if, in fact, you lie to an fbi agent and it's not something that sarah huckabee sanders is going to be able to spin. these guys are incredibly vulnerable because they are who they are. >> let me ask you a serious real question. when i worked in the white house h. i've talked about this before. you and i talked about this monday. scooter libby was indicted by the special investigation by pat fitzgerald because in the questioning process, many, many months after valerie plame's name was leaked, he didn't answer truthfully in an interview. how many white house aides, how many people from the trump campaign have that as a wory right now? >> i got to believe knish who is before the special counsel has

to worry about the facts that their words will be scrutinized. they've already convicted one individual of lying to the fbi. there's another well-known matter of sally yates saying to the white house counsel that he lied in this investigation. this is a serious issue. intelligence profession v professionals from foreign countries look for people who lack integrity, people who are easily compromised, people who are swayed by ego and money and other things. that is a national security vulnerability. that is a major national security vulnerability. far from being strong, it's a major weakness. . >> while we have, you lot me ask you one more question. this idea that bob mueller can be scared away by a mean tweet is so stupid to me. can you take me inside the strategy -- or how bob mueller might respond to some play run

by steve bannon? >> yeah. again, someone i think jonathan or someone referred to as aggressive. actually, when you're aggressive, when you're fighting, it shows your weakness, shows your insecurity. they are not confident about the way this investigation is going to go. that's why they're lashing out around aiming for everyone under the son. >> is there anybody in the white house who the president mites list listen. you need to keep steve bannon. you fired him. but mr. president this will have no bearing of any legal disposition of your family or inner circle. >> perhaps the chief of staff although he himself has brk a source of controversy. you might suggest jared kushner or ivanka trump. >> tell me about jared curb her.

>> he's blamed by many for firing the fbi -- reince didn't want him to be fired. kushner pushed for it. trump blames that nierg and he also still blames jeff sessions for recusing himself. kushner's taking some pete heat there. i think it's interesting ho the president's about to embark on a lengthy international trip. jared organized it. this one, he's playing a very select role, leaving after the stops. this is a dacus moment rmts we need to be careful. >> but a football game. >> i'm not sure this president would. >> we have to sneak in one more break. i've always wanted to create those experiences for others.

with my advisor's help along the way, it's finally my turn to be the host. when you have the right financial advisor, life can be brilliant. ameriprise accused of obstructing justice to theat the fbinuclear war, and of violating the constitution by taking money from foreign governments and threatening to shut down news organizations that report the truth. if that isn't a case for impeaching and removing a dangerous president, then what has our government become? i'm tom steyer, and like you, i'm a citizen who knows it's up to us to do something. it's why i'm funding this effort to raise our voices together and demand that elected officials take a stand on impeachment. a republican congress once impeached a president for far less. yet today people in congress and his own administration know that this president is a clear and present danger

who's mentally unstable and armed with nuclear weapons. and they do nothing. join us and tell your member of congress that they have a moral responsibility to stop doing what's political and start doing what's right. our country depends on it. ...has grown into an enterprise. that's why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. now, i'm earning unlimited 2% cash back on every purchase i make. everything. what's in your wallet?

before i hadburning,oting, of diabetic nerve pain, these feet... loved every step of fatherhood... and made old cars good as new. but i couldn't bear my diabetic nerve pain any longer. so i talked to my doctor and he prescribed lyrica. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs, and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who've had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. now i have less diabetic nerve pain. ask your doctor about lyrica. . we're back in the final seconds. i want to ask you a question. in a week that started with

three indictments from bob mueller, now locked in a war of words rvelt. >> i think this is a presidency that is, in fact, on em, because it's on the brink. major initiatives are floundering. in a new era and i think increasingly isolated within his own party and within his own white house. >> very well said. our thanks to all of you. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now. hi, chuck. >> hi, nicolle. quite a split-screen day. we'll try to do the same thing. two big stories. do the best we can. >> have a great show. if it's wednesday -- the terror blame game is already under way. tonight, why the new york terror attack is turning political so quickly. >> i am today starting the process of terminating the diversit