if the recovery continues, that's interesting how that plays out. that is "all in" for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. >> thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. happy to have you here. it is now officially 51 hours until the federal government shuts down. the republican party controls the house and the senate and the white house, so it is a little hard to believe that they, amongst themselves cannot come up with a way to keep the lights on, but not for the first time in the past year. we are once again on the brink of the shutdown of the federal government. because, even though they mathematically don't need a single vote from a single democrat to do it, republicans appear to, at least at this point, they appear to not be able to agree amongst themselves on a plan to keep the government funded past friday. again. so we are on the brink of that again.

in weirder news, today was the day the president announced he would hold some "i hate the media" awards ceremony. it had originally been scheduled for last week, then it was rescheduled today. in a white house press briefing they said maybe something will happen later. they did post something online, a pdf file, a document, this was the awards ceremony, i guess, whether or not you care about journalism the president likes versus journalism the president believes should be held up for publ public ridicule, the public response over whether he was really going to do this thing is a strange moment. it is a hallmark moment in the unprecedented weirdness of this administration. and of course the president's denouncing fake news and calling some journalism fake news, that comes at time when the real news is queasy making enough.

despite every fiber in my being rebelling against this idea, tonight we will have some reporting on the new evidence about cash payments allegedly being made to multiple women right before the presidential election to prevent those women from discussing extramarital affairs they allegedly had with the president or sexual activity they allegedly engaged in with the president or sexual advances they allege came from the president. you know, a year ago, barack obama was the president. the prospect to there being an opening to a national enougnews like the one i just did, you'd check yourself into a doctor. but this is our life now. this is our nightly news now about the american presidency. you know, one of the things that used to happen in the news were those freiggreat sign-offs. >> reporter:?

-- remember? a lot of the greats had these tag lines >> that's the way it is. >> goodnight and good luck. >> goodnight, david. >> i always wanted it to be goodnight, chet, goodnight, david. i wanted them to compete about it. news anchors don't really do those sign-offs anymore. one of the reasons i know i will never be one of the greats is because last night at the end of the show i think i got as close as i will ever get to my own sit news signoff. i didn't plan on it, didn't script it. it was absolutely an ad-lib based on breaking news happening at the end of the show. i think this is as close as i will ever get. >> his lawyer that he has retained for this russia stuff, who was with hem todim today in house intelligence, his lawyer is also the lawyer in russia matters, the person advising

steve bannon not to talk to the media today. having someone on both sides of this story both represented by the same attorney? that's weird. that does it for us tonight, we'll see you again tomorrow. >> that's my signoff. that's weird. with a cartoonish grimace. that's my signoff. if somebody has already trademarked "that's weird", if they haven't, we'll do it. it ended up not just being a weird thing but being really important today in terms of what has just happened in the biggest scandal involving this presidency. i finished the show last night, claiming over the weirdness of this fact. today we figured out something that is not weird about it and what is really important about it. a lot of the people who worked on the trump campaign and in the white house have had to retain

private counsel to represent them on the russia investigation. the unusual fact done mcgann and reince priebus retained the same lawyer. that's notable for a couple reasons. it's plainly notable when the white house lawyer has to get a lawyer. also, it's not inconceivable that reince priebus, former white house official and don mcgahn might have different recollection about an important event. them sharing a lawyer was already notable before we learned this past week that the same lawyer representing both now also represents a third figure in the investigation. steve bannon, the former white house chief strategist, the man who ran the donald trump campaign. from the outside looking in, it

would seem rationally that there might be a conflict there, for the same lawyer to represent multiple people who represent different interests in this investigation. that said, we can report tonight because nbc news has learned that the special counsel's office, robert mueller, they have now advised that lawyer, whose name is william burck, it's fine for him to represent steve bannon and those other trump officials. now that we now that bannon will soon be meeting with mueller and his prosecutors, it's not clear that he'll use that same lawyer to recommepresent him through h interactions with the special counsel. if he wants to keep that, mueller's office is apparently okay with that in terms of conflicts of interest. that's new tonight reported by nbc. that's interesting. today in congress, the house intelligence committee, the first man to run the donald

trump for president campaign, corey lewandowski and rick dearborn both testified on the russia scandal, and like steve bannon yesterday, corey lewandowski, reportedly refused to answer some of the committee's questions today. that's part of how we know that something really important and something really different is going on when it comes to steve bannon and the mueller investigation and the russia scandal overall. yesterday, the big news we were trying to sort out last night is the fact that steve ban nonon w into that house intelligence committee, refused to answer questions and was hit with a subpoena to try to compel him to answer their questions. that's an unusual occurrence, and part of the reason we know how unusual that is is because corey lewandowski walked into that same committee. he also apparently refused to answer their questions, but they didn't subpoena him.

there wasn't word that the committee demanded to have him back in to ask him the questions in a harsher tone, like previous officials who have refused to answer questions for a variety of reasons, yes, there were complaints from the democrats on the committee, but the republicans didn't seem technically bothered. why was steve bannon treated so differently. a lot of people refused to answer questions. he's the only one that got subpoenaed by the committee. something with steve bannon is very different than the way everybody else is being treated in this scandal. everybody in trump's orbit, from trump campaign workers to trump administration officials both current and former. we know a great long list of them who have been brought in to speak to robert mueller and his investigators in a voluntary context. we now know that steve bannon was never asked to come in and meet with robert mueller in a voluntary context, before he was

hit with a subpoena from the mueller office. the subpoena that was first reported yesterday, a subpoena to bannon that he must come in and testify before a grand jury. bannon was treated very differently by robert mueller than everybody else in the trump campaign. bannon was also treated very differently by congress. just in that house intelligence committee. attorney general jeff sessions was interviewed behind closed doors and said he wanted to not answer their questions on the basis that the president may some day want to exert executive privilege to stop him from giving that testimony in the future. that was a strange argument from the attorney general. corey lewandowski hasn't given any reason. when the president's son, donald jr. refused to answer questions on the basis of attorney/client

privilege. neither donald jr. nor donald senior is an attorney, and which one of you is the client? but in all of those instances, the republican-led committees in congress, the republican-led intelligence committee said no problem with those bull pucky, i mean dubious, even laughbling attempts to avoid answering questions to assert some pseudo legal rationale for not answering the committee's questions. everybody else has weaseled out of answering questions and they have not cared at all. democrats have complained, republicans have mott cared. then steve ban nonon shows up, tries the same thing, boom, here's your subpoena. why is he being treated so differently? i think we've figured it out. last july, july 25th. paul manafort, surprise, appeared on capitol hill, and his spokesman announced that paul manafort, surprise, had

just testified to the intelligence committee on the russia matter. nobody had known that was going to happen before manafort turned up and his spokesman sprung it on everybody. it had been kept secret. that was july 25th. well, that night after midnight, on the 26th, paul manafort got his house raided in the predawn hours. taking pictures of the labels of his suits and all that stuff. he had been in communication, handing over documents, he and his lawyers thought they were in a constructive or voluntary dialog with robert mueller's office. that did not extend to the special counsel's office knowing that -- when he turned up out of

the blue, surprise, it appears that the special counsel's office obtained their no-knock search warrant for paul manafort's office that day and executed it that night. his congressional testimony, his surprise congressional testimony and that raid on his house that night were apparently not unconnected events. after paul manafort appeared before the senate intelligence committee that day, surprising the robert mueller team, "washington post" reported that was just the start of it. manafort and his lawyers expected to continue to cooperate with the intelligence committee's investigation. quote, manafort's lawyers have agreed to make him available to speak with senate committee staffers in the future to discuss other issues. manafort turns over notes from trump tower meeting with russian lawyer. so he surprised everybody by testifying once, he handed over documents, he was continuing to give them stuff, continuing to meet with them. he was scheduled to speak to a whole different committee the

following day, but you know what? none of that happened. those further rounds of testimony, those further t documents did not happen, because in a dramatic fashion in a predawn raid on his home, robert mueller and the special counsel jumped in there, that fbi raid with its speed, its swarm of officers, no-knock provisions, all that drama, that may have been because of a fear that mr. manafort would destroy some special information the special counsel wanted but also because mr. manafort was starting to give that evidence away to congress. paul manafort, eventually, was charged with a dozen felonies in october. so we have to look at the special counsel's evidence they put together. given the seriousness of the charges, that the charges came alongside another trump campaign official, equal number of felony charges and two other trump campaign officials pleading

guilty to felonies, it now seems clear in hindsight that the special counsel's office may not have found it helpful in their inquiries had all the evidence they collected from paul manafort been spread all over capitol hill, possibly even provided to the white house by the president's republican allies in congress. maybe even leaked to the public. until the special counsel wraps up its investigation, we won't know if other evidence collected from manafort ended up being in another case against another person who may be charged in this roigs investigation, but robert mueller's investigation is very obviously going full steam. they've got multiple charges against two senior campaign officials, guilty pleas and cooperation agreements from two other officials. they obtained a grand jury subpoena and are still actively working with a grand jury. alongside their ongoing negotiations to get the president himself interviewed by mueller's prosecutors.

i just have to say, in an alternate universe on earth one where things retain their natural size and shape, it is a huge freaking deal that the national security adviser is quietly cooperating with the special counsel and has been for months, the special counsel that has been working with the grand jury which has already handed down dozens of accounts against the president's top officials. that's happening right now, that mike flynn cooperation. while him and at least one more cooperating witness are looming over this presidency, think about the president's defense team and what they need to strategize. president's defense obviously needs all the yintel they can gt on what they are up against. what mueller has, what they need to mitigate or investigate themselves. to the extent that the evidence and the testimony is going to come from other white house officials, other trump campaign

officials, you know, a lot of those folks are people who the white house has direct access to. there's no question for example that the white house is going to have ongoing access to and communications with people like hope hicks or jared kushner or donald trump jr., people like that are not going to tell investigators anything that's going to surprise the white house, because those folks are in the white house every day. but then there's steve bannon. who ran the president's campaign. he's in a position to know a lot of really high-level insider information about a number of things we believe the mueller investigation is looking at. the white house doesn't know that what steve bannon's going to say. they don't necessarily know what he knows, what he's inclined to talk about, what he would like to talk about. >> former white house chief strategist steve bannon testified yesterday. didn't answer a lot of questions. refused to answer some before the intelligence committee.

>> steve has had very little contact with the white house since he left. i know steve a little bit. not very well. he left the white house and has certainly never returned to the white house, with the exception of a few phone calls here and there, very, very little contact with the white house. and i certainly have never spoke to him since he left. >> that's white house chief of staff john kelly speaking with brett baier. who's telling investigators what about the russia matter. for all the other senior and even semi-senior people who are in a position to know a lot of what happened during the campaign and the transis, ttion. the white house has access to all those people. not steve bannon, not anymore, especially not now after the president denounced him publicly and fragrantly and repeated limit steve bannon has nothing

to do with me or my presidency. when he was fired he not only lost his job he lost his mind. he had very little to do with our historic victory. he doesn't represent our base. he represents himself. he wants to make himself seem far more important than he really is. steve was rarely in a one on one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence. the president threatened a civil lawsuit against steve bannon after michael wolff's book came out. then the president, after threatening to sue him gave mr. bannon a derogatory nickname, sloppy steve has been dumped like a dog. i don't think the president understands dogs. the president kept pouring it on. said publicly that steve bannon cried. he cried when he got fired from the white house and begged for his job. and the white house press sent from the white house briefing room said bannon's employer should consider firing him.

and then in fact, bright bart.com did fire mr. bannon. and his benefactors publicly disparaged him and cut him off at what seemed to be the insistent of the white house. and then he got a subpoena to talk to robert mueller, which is good timing in terms of getting a guy at a time when he's most inclined to talk, right? but he also got that subpoena right before bannon was summoned to go to capitol hill. like everybody else to tell tales, the white house must be very eager to know what bannon has to say. but unlike every other senior person who is in that kind of position, or even charged with a crime, the white house is probably not in a position to find that stuff out on the downlow from steve bannon, because they're not talking with him. they're fighting him tooth and nail. he's not going to tell them

anything. i mean, plausibly. this time last night, we had no idea why bannon was getting subpoenaed twice, once bit mueller investigation and once behind closed doors at the intelligence committee, well, they're trying to force him to talk. nbc news reports tonight that the people directly involved are operating on a belief that steve bannon's subpoena to testify to a grand jury and the subpoena to testify in congress are not unrelated matters. they're operating on the belief that the mueller subpoena to steve bannon was designed essentially to preserve for mueller the first crack at bannon's testimony on the russia scandal. what happened last night with bannon being in that congressional commity for ten hours was not the republicans suddenly being outraged that a witness was not being forthcoming with them about the stru trump administration. they haven't cared about any other witness. what happened last night with

steve ban none non in there for hours was not a principled fight about how much they could block by exerting executive privilege. the very idea of that is absurd. steve bannon and the white house counsel have the same lawyer. the lawyer's picking up his phone, i represent the white house, tell bannon he can't talk. then he moves the phone to the other ear, i represent steve bannon, i say not to talk. it's the same lawyer. there was no principled fight going on between two sides over executive privilege. if so, the same lawyer would not be representing both of those entities. and the iran contra investigation, they gave immunity to some involved in that and it ended up screwing up the prosecution.

in this investigation, it is led by a trump transition member who has been openly working with the white house to advance the president's defense on the russia investigation. that kind of thing has consequences. it appears that the mueller subpoena is at least believed by people involved in this to have been designed to stop steve bannon from talking to congress so his evidence goes to mueller instead, to preserve and present his evidence for the criminal part of this investigation. right now the consequences of there being trump partisans leading at least some of the congressional investigations into the russia matter, the consequence of that right now, what it appears to mean about this whole steve bannon mission goss they're jumping in to make sure congress doesn't mess up what mueller is doing. that's what's going on. and now is the part where i look

soberly at the camera and intone with fake gravitas, that's weird. ♪ let your inner light loose with one a day women's. ♪ a complete multivitamin specially formulated with key nutrients plus vitamin d for bone health support. your one a day is showing. somesend you and your family overwhelrunning. y can... introducing febreze one for fabric and air. no aerosols. no dyes. no heavy perfumes. it cleans away odors for a pure light freshness... so you can spray and stay. febreze one, breathe happy.

this next little tape is going to sound very calm, but i'm quite sure this is the sound of a leading congressman who has had it! who is sounding an alarm for his colleagues and the country and who in his own incredibly, indelibly calm way is putting down his foot. >> we as an investigative committee cannot allow that to become the routine, to allow witnesses to decide when and where they're willing to answer questions. but moreover, given that another

executive branch official today was fully willing to answer all these questions, it does tell us the white house is treating steve bannon differently than others who served in the administration. and this committee is treating witnesses differently than they treated mr. bannon. >> congressman adam schiff today, the top democrat on the intelligence committee in the house where they have tried to get answers this week from three figures in the orbit of the president, current white house deputy chief of staff rick dearborn who we're told did answer questions today. corey lewandowski who showed up and said apparently, maybe he'll answer questions sometime later and former trump senior adviser and campaign ceo, steve bannon, who would not answer questions yesterday but did get a nifty subpoena from the special counsel robert mueller in addition to the on-site subpoena

he got yesterday. he was expected to come back tomorrow, his lawyer tonight is casting doubt on that. a source close to the situation says mr. bannon will cooperate fully and answer all questions from the special counsel, from robert mueller's investigation. the initial subpoena has now given way to mr. bannon agreeing to meet voluntarily with mueller's investigators, a meeting that is expected to happen soon, and, again, one where sources familiar with the matter say bannon intends to answer all questions and cooperate fully. joining us now is adam schiff. it's really nice to have you back with us tonight, particularly this evening. thankful for you to be here. >> good to be with you. >> if a person is subpoenaed to testify to a grand jury on a criminal or counter intelligence matter and then they are subpoenaed to testify to congress on the same matter, do those things potentially conflict? and if so, does the criminal or

counter intelligence matter take precedence over congress's subpoena? >> they don't necessarily conflict, and one doesn't necessarily take precedence over the other. i can't tell you anything about the timing of the special counsel's subpoena or whether it was a reaction to our inviting mr. bannon to appear before our committee, but there's nothing that would preclude him from testifying completely before our committee and also fully cooperating with the special counsel. what makes this so bebuiwilderi is the position the white house has taken with steve bannon was directly contradicted by the other executive branch witness that we had testify today. and that is, that witness, a current member of the administration answered all of our questions, questions during the campaign, questions during the transition. questions during his tenure in the administration, so what sarah huckabee sanders said yesterday, not surprisingly,

completely wrong. they didn't discuss on some long discourse with the committee about the parameters in which they would be allowed to testify. he answered all of our questions. they are treating steve bannon very differently for reasons we don't understand. it may be they're afraid of what he has to say, it may be that they don't know what he has to say. it may be that they've thrown him under the bus and they have their own reasons for this. but there's no denying the incredible contradiction between what they said to steve bannon, what they have said publicly and the treatment of the witness today. >> there is something strange and interesting going on about steve bannon. he's being treated differently by the special counsel's office compared to other administration and campaign officials. he's being treated differently by the republican leadership of your committee than they have treated other senior campaign officials and he is being treated differently by the white house in terms of white house intervention in his potential testimony. do you believe, at least on the

part of the way the white house is dealing with him, do you believe that this is because they're scared about what he is going to testify about? is there something about the scope of the questioning? the kinds of topics he could conceivably be asked about, that there's more reason for them to be more nervous about compared to the other people who have testified without any white house interference at all? >> that is a plausible explanation. many of the other witnesses are current members of the administration or are members of the president's family. there's no question about what they're going to say. with steve bannon, there's always a profound question about what he's going to say. and that book, "fire and fury", couldn't be further prove of that. the committee is treating him differently. the other witness that we had, corey lewandowski yesterday goes on fox news and says i'm going to answer every question of the committee. but then what happens between yesterday and today? we have steve bannon's

testimony, and steve bannon says i won't answer any questions after i left the campaign. what does corey lewandowski decide to do today in contrast to what he said he was going to do yesterday? he decides i'm not going to answer any questions after i left the campaign. he can't provide any executive privilege, just that i'm not prepared to do it. and what do the committee say? that's fine, come back when it's convenient to you. when we asked mr. lewandowski, did you speak with the president in the last 24 hours about your proposed testimony, he would not answer the question. so there is a lot more we're going to need to know. he says he's willing to come back, but the committee wasn't willing to insist on answers today, and we'll have to hope that they're as good as their commitment to bring him back in the near future. >> congressman, one last point i want to clear up with you. there's been a lot of discussion

today that the white house is asserting executive privilege in order to block testimony from bannon. it's my understanding that the white house is not formally doing that. the white house chief of staff john kelly today on fox news told brett baier they are not doing it. there is reporting that suggests this is happening. are they exerting executive privilege? >> their >> this is the exact kind of dodge. they send john kelly out to say we have not invoked executive privilege. technically, that's true. but what three have done is saying, telling witnesses don't answer the questions, but also don't tell the committee that we've invoked executive privilege. we don't want to look like we're hiding something by invoking privilege, but we don't want you to answer the questions, so don't answer them. >> this is getting weirder and weirder. >> can i mention, too, rachel? this is an important point which you started out with, if we

allow this, it will not only obviously impair our ability to get to the truth, it will impair the ability of any congress in the future to hold any administration accountable if we will simply take no for an answer when it's convenient to the white house. >> congressman adam schiff, the top democrat on the intelligence committee helping us sort some of this out. thank you for your clarity sir, thank you for being here. stay with us. to their breeding grounds. except for these two fellows. this time next year, we're gonna be sitting on an egg. i think we're getting close! make a u-turn... u-turn? recalculating... man, we are never gonna breed. just give it a second. you will arrive in 92 days. nah, nuh-uh. nope, nope, nope. you know who i'm gonna follow? my instincts. as long as gps can still get you lost, you can count on geico saving folks money. i'm breeding, man. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. let your inner light loose with one a day women's. ♪ a complete multivitamin specially

formulated with key nutrients plus vitamin d for bone health support. your one a day is showing. ♪ cleaning floors with a mop and bucket is a hassle, meaning you probably don't clean as often as you'd like. for a quick and convenient clean, try swiffer wetjet. there's no heavy bucket, or mop to wring out, because the absorb and lock technology traps dirt and liquid inside the pad. it's safe to use on all finished surfaces tile, laminate and hardwood. and it prevents streaks and hazing better than a micro fiber strip mop, giving you a thorough clean the first time.

for a convenient clean, try swiffer wetjet with a money back guarantee. brand power. helping you buy better.

woman: so, greg, it's a lot to take in. woman 2: and i know that's hard to hear, but the doctors caught it early. hi, blake! my dad has cancer. woman: and i know how hard that is to hear. but you're in the right place. man: and dr. pascal and her team, they know what to do. they know what to do. the doctors know what to do. so here's the plan. first off, we're going to give you all... (voice fading away) hey, how up are you on your

celebrity news? how likely is it that you're coming to me to be updated on your celebrity news? i know, i know. but you do actually need to know about this. "in touch" magazine, stormy daniels, my affair with donald. she is a former adult actress, the details of her affair with our current president are available on your local newsstand, and whether or not you care about the president's alleged marital fidelity or lack thereof, you should actually know about theis story and let e say why. ms. daniels alleged that this affair happened between her and mr. trump in 2006. the magazine says they heard the story from ms. daniels in 2011, but they're publishing it today. we do have the question as to why this magazine is choosing to publish it now, seven years down the road. they had it in 2011, we asked and they gave us no comment.

but this tabloid account, published after a self-year delay, that at any other time at any other president it would have blown the doors off anything going on. one month before the election, michael cohen paid stormy daniels $130,000 to purchase her silence over her claims of a 2006 affair with the president. and she was not, reportedly, the only one. in a story that got buried, because it came out four days before the presidential election, the same "wall street journal" reporting team reported that a different adult star karen mcdougal, had also been paid for her silence about mr. trump. she was reportedly paid $150,000 by the national inquienquirer, bought her story after buying the exclusive rights to that story, exclusive being the important part of that, the

trump-friendly national enquirer quashed that story and never ran it. the trump-supporting national enquirer denied quashing the story. the trump campaign denied any knowledge of what the enquirer said or did. or any affair. the white house has been denying reports like this since the campaign. but in the story of stormy daniels, when donald trump's lawyer, michael cohen denied that there had been a stormy daniels/donald trump affair, notably, he did not address the alleged payment, the $130,000 payment to ms. daniels that was reported in the "wall street journal." we have been trying to track this down ourselves. we got basically the same response. we reached out to mr. cohen about that payment and where the money came from. he was very nice, but he told us, quote, how many more denials are needed? again, though, on the subject of this alleged $130,000 payment,

sir, crickets. nothing. no specific denial on that. so, there is still this question of this alleged payment from trump world to the porn star for her silence about an affair that's now being described in a different cop tentext from an earlier time before this payment was allegedly made. so the question about this story about the idea of payment, that's why we plunked down $3.99 for a copy of the story. if people surrounding the president were making payments to women to silence them, where candida did the money come from? who paid? hold that thought shawn evans: it's 6 am.

40 million americans are waking up to a gillette shave. and at our factory in boston, 1,200 workers are starting their day building on over a hundred years of heritage, craftsmanship and innovation. today we're bringing you america's number one shave at lower prices every day. putting money back in the pockets of millions of americans. as one of those workers, i'm proud to bring you gillette quality for less, because nobody can beat the men and women of gillette. gillette - the best a man can get.

are made with smarttrack®igners material to precisely move your teeth to your best smile. see how invisalign® treatment can shape your smile

up to 50% faster today at invisalign.com can this much love be cleaned by a little bit of dawn ultra? oh yeah one bottle has the grease cleaning power of three bottles of this other liquid. a drop of dawn and grease is gone. alright, i brought in high protein to help get us moving. ...and help you feel more strength and energy in just two weeks! i'll take that. -yeeeeeah! ensure high protein.

with 16 grams of protein and 4 grams of sugar. ensure. always be you. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember. who paid? where'd the money come from? if money was paid to silence talk of alleged affairs with the president, as the wall street journal has reported in the case of stormy daniels, where candidate mondid the money come from? former trump adviser steve bannon is quoted in "fire and fury" about marc kasowitz. kasowitz on the campaign, what did we have, 100 women?

kasowitz took care of all of them. we called marc kasowitz about it and asked him. he was very nice. the spokesperson told us the statements attributed to mr. bannon are fiction. neither mr. kasowitz or his firm had or has any knowledge of or participation in any such payments during the campaign or otherwise, period. that statement from marc kasowitz about him and his firm knowing or doing anything about any payments to any girls, that is the closest we have come to getting any answer at all about these alleged payments, and it is not for lack of trying. since that "wall street journal" story, we've learned that no fewer than six media outlets were chasing this story prior to the election, including one publication run by this very impressive guy. joining me is jacob wiseburg. you're the editor of the slate

group. slate has played an interesting part in this story coming to light. >> it's not my usual type of journalism. but i did get on to the story in the late summer of 2016 through the friend of a friend. i reached stormy daniels. she told me this story, and at that point, she was in the midst of negotiating, or so she said, with representatives of donald trump to not tell her story, but because she didn't believe they were going to pay, she knew donald trump pretty well. she thought they'd get past the election. of course nobody thought donald trump was going to win the election. and then she thought the market value of the story would drop to zero, they wouldn't pay and she'd be left high and dry, which is why she was trying to sell her story as an alternative. it's interesting. there's a market for everything. the market price for a porn star selling her silence about donald trump seems to range between $130,000 and $150,000 depending on the date in object ctober or

november. but after november 8 it would have dropped precipitously. >> so she's telling you she's trying to get money out of trump in exchange for her silence. she's talking to you and other media outlets to basically increase her leverage to get that and give herself another place that might potentially pay her for her story if the nda doesn't come through. >> she sent me a couple pages from this document. and they weren't signed and i didn't have independent verification, but this document is really interesting, and it didn't seem like the time this lawyer of hers, keith davidson in l.a., had worked on this type of agreement. it uses pseudonyms, and then there's a rider, a side letter published in slate that says here are the real names behind the pseudonyms. she is peggy peterson and blank to be filled in is david d

denison. only two people can keep the copies, keith davidson, stormy daniel's lawyer and the lawyer for the other party who we now know was michael cohen. >> he has not denied specifically that there was a payment made to stormy daniels. if there was, is that something that could be legally chased? is there a paper trail behind that that could be found? the reason it seems to even matter is because the source of the funds is potentially important. if this is something that ends up having a meaningful effect on the campaign, somebody who paid that for donald trump, for the trump campaign might conceivably been making a the campaign contribution by putting up that $130,000. where's the best way to find out where that came from. >> whether there was an fec violation. if michael dough hcohen paid fo with his own money, i doubt

that, karen mcdougal. who was paid by national inquire irto not tell her story, that look maybe like a third party pay. in this case, i know donald trump like to pay for much himself but this might be the rare case he does pay with his own money. >> there's no denial on the record that the money was paid. >> not only that but michael cohen, trump's personal attorney, released stormy daniels's statement. it's almost a finger in the eye if you're trying to make the case that you did not make a deal with someone, why do you release their statement? maybe they would release their statement. it also sounded like it was written by donald trump. i don't think that, but somehow people take on this guy's lin go. >> we could all take take on his lin go. we could all write a donald trump statement. >> trust me, rachel. >> i want to underscore one last

thing you said there. if the national enquirer bought the story, paid that woman $150,000 to make the story go away, the possibility that that was an in-kind -- well, it was a campaign donation, should be looked at in terms of campaign finance. the money here is important whether you care about the sex part. thank you, jacob, for helping us under this story. >> thank you, rachel. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why at safelite, we'll show you exactly when we'll be there. with a replacement you can trust. all done sir. >> grandpa: looks great! >> tech: thanks for choosing safelite. >> grandpa: thank you! >> child: bye! >> tech: bye! saving you time... so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪

my hygi...a mouthwash.o try... so i tried crest. it does so much more than give me fresh breath. crest pro-health mouthwash provides all...

...of these benefits to help you get better dental check-ups. go pro with crest mouthwash. checkup? nailed it

>> it's not just a meeting, it's a business meeting. meeting, colon, business meeting, colon, consideration of a public release of a committee transcript. tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. the intelligence committee in the house will hold a business meeting in room 304 at the u.s. capitol. at that they will vote whether the committee should release the transcript from the meeting with glen simpson, he's the head of gps fusion. he testified behind closed doors at the house intel committee back in november, kept him for almost 7 hour, cnn reported at the time that in that hearing simpson told the committee that the sources of the dossier weren't paid. none of the sources were given money for the information. but other than that cnn reporting we have no idea what simpson told house intel.

we have one transcript from him already from when he talked to the senate. that 312 page transcript that had lots of good stuff in it. this is a whole different transcript from a different seven-hour interview. fusion want this is one released. and the committee will take a vote whether or not they'll release it. there are 13 republicans, 9 democrats. they need a simple majority to release the transcript to the world. we asked the leadership how they thought vote would go, nobody got back to us. they never do. we don't know when the transcript will come out, if it's allowed to, we also know that the transcript left a butt load of questions. you should watch this vote tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. we are advised that it's not

impossible that the republicans will join democrats in voting to let this out. that's the rumor, that's what we're hearing. we find out tomorrow, seven hours worth of testimony. if they release it tomorrow, you will wish you got a better night's sleep than you are about to get. i was wondering if an electric toothbrush really cleans better than a manual. and my hygienist says it does but they're not all the same. who knew? i had no idea. so she said, look for one that's shaped like a dental tool with a round brush head. go pro with oral-b. oral-b's rounded brush head surrounds each tooth to gently remove more plaque.

and unlike sonicare, oral-b is the only electric toothbrush brand accepted by the american dental association for its effectiveness and safety. my mouth feels so clean. i'll only use an oral-b. oral-b. brush like a pro.

new family connections, every day.llion that's more ways to discover new relatives. people who share your dna. and maybe a whole lot more. order your kit at ancestrydna.com by now you might have heard about a special election that had a surprise positive result for democrats last night in wisconsin. this was a senate district where

every county in that district had gone for trump in a state where trump won by 17 points. he won by 17 points in that district. it had been held by a republican incumbent for 17 years. last night there was a special election, it was won by a democrat and she won by a lot, double digits. that story today freaked out a lot of republicans including what is supposed to be trump countries, wisconsin. we got news trump will be traveling to pennsylvania there's a special election held in pennsylvania that's been held by a republican for a very long time. in a normal year republicans would not have to lift a finger to hold onto this seat. this year in this pennsylvania race the president is going to be campaigning for tomorrow, the democrat is outraising the republican. the republicans are worried the seat is going to