the fbi going to the mattresses today to protect the integrity of the nation's top law enforcement agency. and the classified information it relies upon to prevent terrorist attacks and counter enemies of the united states. at issue, a memo that the republicans on the house intel committee and the white house want released. the fbi releasing an extraordinary statement this afternoon that reads, quote, we have grave concerns about the material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy. this follows a hot mic moment from president trump after last night's state of the union in which he appears to put the odds at 100% that he will release the memo. >> release the memo? >> don't worry. 100%. >> can you imagine that? >> yes, sir. >> the fbi statement is a last-ditch effort to change hearts and minds after fbi director chris wray and deputy attorney general rod rosenstein were rebuffed by white house

chief of staff john kelly in a white house meeting monday, first reported by the washington post last night. the fbi defended the bureau's handling of classified material obtained through surveillance. quote, the fbi takes seriously its obligations to the fisa court and its compliance with procedures overseen by career professionals in the department of justice and the fbi. but the white house so far is as unmoved as paul ryan was when he rebuffed pleas from wray and rosenstein to protect classified material. >> as far as the memo goes, the memo came over. we've got our folks in the national security lawyers in the white house that work for me, work for the president. they're slicing and dicing it, looking at it so we know what it means, what it understands. >> did you see it? >> i did. >> what do you think? >> it will be released pretty quick and the whole world can see t. >> the whole word can see it.

reporters and guests, ken delanieian, washington post ashley park erk ear associate press white house reporter jonathan la mere, also barbara mcwade, u.s. attorney. i spoke to a justice department official. i was with him, i showed him my phone and said, have you ever seen this before? he said, no, never. have you ever seen anything like this before, such a public and a public relations battle between the fbi and a sitting president and a republican chairman of the committee who is known to have gotten himself into some shenanigans with fisa material? >> no, it's absolutely unprecedented. and what concerns me the most is i worry about the long-term damage this does to the fbi. you know, whatever comes out of this particular skirmish, meanwhile there are agents all over the country who are interviewing ordinary citizens in kidnapping cases, in bank

robbery cases and i worry that their reputation is being poisoned and they're not going to get the cooperation they need to resolve those cases. >> so, would you put the stakes, barbara, at life and death stakes for the fbi in terms of the importance of protecting the integrity and respect for the nation's top cops? >> it could be. i guess we don't know exactly what's in that memo. but they said it would be extraordinarily reckless to release it. the things that the fbi cares about most in these situations is protecting either sources or methods. sources means, you know, a person who borough vieded that information. so, if it gets disclosed, the whole world will see, as chief of staff kelly said, the whole world gets to see this. and so a source's identity may be revealed. only this person knew this information and now here it is. so, that could get someone killed. similarly with methods, that's a method of collection, a particular location that is bugged, a particular facility, of communication that is intercepted, and if someone knows how they communicated, they will know that that facility is compromised.

and so it can certainly have a long-term negative consequence on either the life of an informant or a method of collection. >> ken delanieian, let me bring you the latest news from the gutter. devin nunes weighing in with this statement on the fbi's statement. saying having stone walled congress's demands for information for nearly a year, it's no surprise to see the fbi and d.o.j. issue spurious objections to allowing the american people to see information related to surveillance abuses at these agencies. let's actually stop right there and talk about that for a second because i'm just -- maybe i'm slow, but devin nunes, the chairman of the house intel committee is accusing the fbi of stonewalling for nearly a year, saying it's no surprise to see the fbi and d.o.j. -- this is the trump-led fbi, led by christopher wray, hand picked by donald trump, recommended by his good friend chris christie because he represented him in bridge gate. certainly no actor in a deep state. and d.o.j., led by jeff sessions

who even though donald trump is mad at him for recusing himself, is certainly zealously pursuing donald trump's anti-immigration, antiillegal immigration agenda. so, he's accusing the fbi and d.o.j. of stonewalling, both led by trump appointees, and not allowing americans to see information related to surveillance abuses. the fbi's position is that revealing that information would jeopardize sources and methods as barbara just put out. what is devin nunes talking about? >> well, look, these kinds of rhetorical battles between members of congress and the administration, even within one political party are not unprecedented, right. it's the role of congress to conduct oversight over the department of justice, the fbi, intelligence community. what is inof unprecedented here and what is so far from normal is the fact that they have invoked this little -- never-before used house rule to actually force the release of classified information. it's hard for those of us who cover this stuff to convey to

the public just how outside the norm this is. i was speaking to an attorney named jeffrey smith who has worked for both the cia and the hill over the years. he was talking about how there's been this system of congressional oversight of intelligence that has grown up over 40 years and it's based on trust. the executive branch shares some classified information with the hill on the premise that it's not going to be released unless everyone agrees that doesn't harm nooational security. what devin nunes and house republicans have done is completely blow that up. this house rule is designed sort of to allow congress to blow the whistle on serious misconduct in the executive branch. if you had an administration operating outside the law, doing horrible things under the gooui of classification, that is not what is happening here by any measure. career republicans and the justice department have said they have seen no fisa abuses. what is alleged here is deeply misleading. the implications of this are

profound and they go well beyond this one particular dispute, nicolle. >> let me keep going. even little old me can catch devin nunes in a lie here. he goes on to say the fbi is intimately familiar with material omissions with respect to their presentation s to congress and the courts and they are welcome to make public to the greatest extent possible all the information they have on these abuses. well, first of all, the person that wanted to come and make a presentation to the house intel committee was fbi director christopher wray who pleaded to come and speak with the house intel committee before the vote to release the memo. any explanation from paul ryan or devin nunes as to why they rejected christopher wray's pleas to make a case and try to articulate the case for keeping sensitive the classified material gathered, i understand, through fisa surveillance? >> none so far, nicolle. but just before we went on the air i was told by our colleagues that the transcript of the meeting, the house intelligence committee meeting where the vote took place, is now out and so our colleagues are pouring tlul it to see if that issue was

raised there. but, no, nunes hasn't explained that, why he did not personally read according to adam schiff the underlying fisa documents that made up the memo. apparently he sent trey gowdy to read them. none of the other house members have read it nor has devin nunes explained why he declined to share with his republican counterpart senator burr. it doesn't make sense here unless you believe that what dev devin nunes and house republicans are trying to do is undermine the mueller investigation with a misleading account of how the fbi operated. >> barbara, i want to read more and fact check this in real time. nunes continues, it's clear the top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counter intelligence investigation during an american political campaign. i assume that what nunes is referring to is the dossier, and i have been told that the dossier was not the only thing that went into or that would have gone into -- that a fisa

judge would have had a higher standard. the dossier is posted on buzzfeed. why would anyone protect the dossier? it's on the internet. what they're protecting is very obviously more sensitive information that as you started by saying would reveal sources and methods. so, other than trying to fuel the ratings of another network's cable programming, why would he lie about the fisa process? >> well, i don't know, but i look at that statement by the fbi that says they comply with the fisa process and it's a very rigorous process. to even get a fisa, you have to be at the stage of a full-field investigation which means predicated investigation. so, it wouldn't be the only thing that's starting the case. you would have had something prior to start the case. there is something known as woods procedures which means every fact that is listed in the probable cause affidavit is supported by some other underlying document. the only thing that would cause a warrant to be invalid is if someone knowingly or recklessly provided false information and

that information was the sole basis for probable cause. that might invalidate a warrants. in light of all those other requirements in the fisa process, it seems unlikely that they relied solely on this document and that may be what they're talking about when they say there are material omissions in the nunes memo. >> ashley parker, we also don't know, we put in the category of known unknowns because devin nunes won't say whether or not he worked with the white house on the anti-fbi memo. do you have any reporting that suggests we're any closer to understanding the white house's role? we know devin nunes has colluded with the white house in the past, last april he got in a little bit of trouble for it. but could you talk about what you know about the white house's role in the memo other than assuring us that the odds are 100%, that this memo, that the fbi is gravely concerned about, that they describe as extraordinarily reckless is going to come out? >> sure. that's a great question. and that's something we at the washington post are obviously chasing right now.

but i think one key thing is what you mentioned just a moment ago about we know that nunes has colluded with the white house before and been a bit disingenuous about it. remember, he sort of called this press conference to say he had brand-new information about deliberate unmasking of trump officials that turned out not to be quite right. and it also turned out something he didn't mention at the time that he learned that information when he walked onto white house grounds and was told it by two trump administration officials. so, if you just look at the public comment so far which is that he won't answer the question and that the white house won't unequivocally say, no, i believe sarah huckabee sanders said, not that i'm aware of. when you see hedges like that in public, it often means the answer privately is yes, they did work together. but again to be clear, we don't know that definitively yet. >> jonathan la mere, in light of people accusing the fbi of

breaking the law, i wonder if you can explain why john kelly says this. kelly held separate meetings or phone calls with senior justice department officials last monday, tuesday and wednesday to convey trump's displeasure with fbi and d.o.j. to lecture them on the white house's expectations. let me read that again. and to lecture them on the white house's expectations. kelly has taken to ending such conversations where he lectures them on the white house's expectations with a disclaimer that the white house isn't expecting officials to do anything illegal. please explain, jonathan la mere. >> that's a pretty remarkable way to end any sort of conversation. the white house, we're seeing this as part of a pattern of pressure the white house has been putting on the justice department. we know that trump refers to justice department privately as his justice department, the trump justice department. we have heard him in interviews say that he does expect the attorney general, jeff sessions, to have loyalty to him and he's been angry that he hasn't when he's invoked names like eric holder and robert kennedy,

saying they were far more loyal to their presidents than sessions has been to him. on the memo, the white house has received -- earlier this week it's been in the care of the white house counsel's office. since then they have been selectively reading in people who have seen the memo. john kelly as you saw in the interview earlier, he has read it. they are national security counsel lawyers have it now. and we do anticipate the white house has not given a timetable as to when they will release it. there is a possibility it could be even later today or shortly in the next couple of days. they may not wait for the full five days that congress had indicated. the president has said this is something he wants out there. he has told -- the associated press's reporting today, he has told people privately he feels like it is a great evidence of how the fbi and justice department had worked against him, had tried to dee legitimatize his election and he thinks this will help clear his name. >> no one is going anywhere. i want to bring into the conversation of our table today,

charlie siekz, commentator and msnbc contributor, former clinton campaign advisor now with sirius xm radio. jason johnson, politics editor for the root, and john heilman, nbc news, cnbc analyst. john heilman, you have theories about devin nunes. i want to ask you about today's development because i feel like this is going to be -- there's going to be prefbi declaring a white house move to be of grave concern and post. and whatever happens afterward will sort of be post-grave -- post-warning of gravity. this feels like a marking -- a marker that the fbi put down today. and i wonder, one, if you agree with that assessment. and, two, if you think that the consequence of the white house going ahead and doing something against the fbi's warning could include some high-level resignations. >> yes on the first thing,

important moment. not sure about the second thing. resignations in this administration, no one resigns. >> it's like called friday. >> people get fired. i want to focus on one small thing. president of the united states is constitutionally -- his main constitution and responsibility is the security of united states of america. right? last night at the state of the union on the way out. he said he was 100% sure that he was going do release this memo. his spokesperson says, and according to our reporting to this point, he still hasn't read the memo. so, the president right now -- this is how seriously he's taking the fbi's concerns. the fbi's concerned about elks posing sources of methods, exposing national security secrets. the fbi is now saying they are concerned about the basic facts of the memo the the president of the united states said he was 100% sure he was going to release this memo which he hasn't read. i'm not sure i have heard a

better encapsulation of the fundamental irresponsibility of the president with respect to his fundamental obligations to the country than that. his fbi is telling him, it's dangerous to put this out. i'm going to put it out. i don't even know what's in it. >> let me offer a theory. what if he helped create the memo? devin nunes according to the daily beast won't say if he worked with the white house on the fbi memo. there is pretty regular and open communication between the white house and devin nunes. what if he knows he's going to release it because he helped create it? >> it's certainly possible and certainly the history, devin nunes recused himself from the russia investigation which was doing this thing, collaborating with the white house to create a bogus charge back in a year ago now, right? so, a precedent tells you anything, i have no basis, no factual basis to say that theory is true. but we have precedent for that theory being true because it's happened before. >> jason -- go ahead. >> the fact that the language of

the fbi calling this reckless essentially saying that it's also going to be dishonest, cut through the verbiage. they're saying this is bogus. so, you have here the recklessness, the dishonesty and the cynicism. we all know what this is about. this is all about the mueller investigation. this is all about discrediting this. this is all about the complicity now of members of congress in this long rolling obstruction of justice. ask >> and we've seen this with nunes who has run around sneaking and whispering in everybody's ears these craze iz conspiracies. i always step back from these things and say, look, there is always reason to question institutions. i don't inherently have a problem with congress saying, hey, let's make sure. look, every single agency says it's going to risk national security. they said that during the obama administration, you can't talk about torture. you'll risk national security. all those things are legitimate. we're looking at this in the context of a president who just yesterday said, yeah, i'm going to ignore congress that we

should push sanctions against russia for investigating -- for influencing our elections and now i'm going to ignore our own department of justice which says, hey, this has something to do with that prohe is is. this speaks to a president who is absolutely dead set against following anything that has to do with the safety of the country. that's what's dangerous about this. >> i would also say that as the people in the media, we have to remember we run -- i was on a campaign last year where the irresponsible use of classified information was a central tenet why we shouldn't elect hillary clinton. president trump and all the people in his campaign argued that, republicans in congress argued that. sitting here today it's pretty hilarious for them to be arguing we should releasing classified information that could potentially damage ongoing investigations. and i think to barbara's point, that is an important one. the long lasting impact on the u.s. attorneys that have to go before courts. they have to argue cases in front of juries. juries are now hearing all of these smears about u.s. attorneys in the fbi and that is

going to impact cases that have nothing to do with russia. >> one last question for you before we let you go and i hope you'll stick close to your camera. you guys have been breaking say lot of stories on this ubt s. what does the white house say about why it wasn't the white house counsel interfacing with the justice department, which is i don't know if it's the law, but it's certainly the tradition? >> it is certainly the tradition and our understanding is this sort of not necessarily related to this current set of circumstances, but is actually something that came up in the sort of routine ethics trainings that the white house has been doing these past few weeks, which is that that is the way it should go. the white house counsel should be the one interfacing with independent outside agencies. so, i think that's something they recognize is a problem and are in theory trying to get right with. >> la mere, let me get to the same question since you covered the building and you're standing right there. any explanation or even spin from the white house on why it is john kelly dealing with the justice department and not the

white house counsel? >> no, no definitive explanation. john kelly is taking a more central role both privately and publicly in this administration, including interfacing with, you know, with other agencies, doing the president's bidding, sometimes seemingly acting independently which has caused him to be reprimanded by the president on occasion. the white house has been pretty close hold as to what they expect how this to go the next few days, how they want to roll out if they indeed choose to release the memo how that will go or when. and as you said, they have not even confirmed the president himself has read it. >> ken, ashley and john, do me a favor and stay close to cameras the rest of the hour. i thank you all. ken, come back if you learn anything else about that house transcript from the teams pouring over. when we come back, the white house standoff with the fbi is playing out against daily questions about whether donald trump is about to say, you're fired to the man overseeing the mueller investigation. and russian coordination. a new report that the top russian spy traveled to the u.s. last week to meet with the head

of the cia, a trip that's raising questions from everything how he got into the country in the first place to what the heck they're talking about. to everyone else, i look like everyone else. but on the inside, i feel chronic, widespread pain. fibromyalgia may be invisible to others, but my pain is real. fibromyalgia is thought to be caused by overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. i'm glad my doctor prescribed lyrica. for some, lyrica delivers effective relief for moderate to even severe fibromyalgia pain. and improves function. 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. with less pain, i can do more with my family talk to your doctor today. see if lyrica can help. (whispering) with the capital one venture card, you'll earn unlimited double miles on every purchase, every day.

not just airline purchases. (yelling) holy moly, that's a lot of miles! shh-h-h-h! what's in your wallet? man: shh-h-h!

chris mathews calls it a potential saturday night massacre in slow motion. it started when trump fired james comey because of the russia thing. now reports suggest trump is coming for rosenstein. the washington post reporting that the president has told close advisors recently that the house gop memo could provide him with grounds for either firing or forcing the deputy attorney

general to leave. according to one person familiar with his remarks. and as charlie savage writes in "the new york times," trump's ultimate target may in fact be special counsel bob mueller. under justice department regulations rolls r only rosenstein can fire mueller and only if he finds the special counsel has committed misconduct. something he has repeatedly said he has not seen any sign of. but if mr. trump were to fire rosenstein, he could install a more accommodating replacement. someone willing to say that he or she had spotted a reason to justify removing the special counsel and shutting down his investigation. barbara mcquade is still with us and the panel is here. you say it won't happen, but sally yates, we understood at the time to be because of the muslim ban, but coincidentally, i suppose, she had warned them about michael flynn. gone. comey asked to see to it to let flynn go. gone. sessions, a constant target of cyberattacks from the president

and of his disgust and disdain for not staying and overseeing the investigation. rosenstein, someone whose loyalty he has questioned. someone who internally he described as a democrat. he's not a democrat. you know, maybe he'll become one after this. but what do you make of all this? >> the first thing you said was, you say it won't happen. i don't know, if anybody who says it won't happen -- >> the white house says it won't >> the white house says it won't happen. [ laughter ] >> and the reality is in any white house, you can assert something to be true and it's true until it's not true any more. look, trump wants to fire mueller. he's wanted to fire mueller for a long time. he talks about it constantly and on one occasion at least he asked the white house counsel to fire him. he's looking for a way to fire him >> or neuter him. >> you bring in somebody else to over see the investigation, then he can control the scope of where he's going. >> i don't think donald trump

understands the word neuter. what he understands is fire. he's good at firing people. firing is in his purview and what he thinks about the world. he's looking for various angles to get himself to the point where he in his mind feels he can justify it and the political damage won't be too great. i think it is not inevitable, but it is directionally close to inevitable that he will try again if not succeed to fire mueller. a >> here's another reason why that may be in the news and on his mind right now. so, abc is reporting that in the weeks before special counsel robert mueller's team interviewed jeff sessions, the justice department turned over a cache of internal correspondence including documents related to the proposed resignation of sessions in last year's e-mails with the white house about fired national security advisor mike flynn according to a source with knowledge of the matter. i mean, it's circling in. it's getting closer and closer and closer. >> it's always seemed to me, it's like a team owner saying, hey, this coach is safe. the more you hear that you know

the coach is about to get fired. donald trump, at some point, if he manages to stay in office, he will try to get rid of robert mueller. the only reason i don't think he's been able to do it this year is because, one, you have members of his administration saying he'll quit. i suspect to the degree he listens to this, he hears from mitch mcconnell or paul ryan, if you do that this year we will definitely lose the house and senate. >> do you think they can finish the sentence and you may get impeached? >> i don't even think the president would listen to that. i don't necessarily have confidence the democrats will try and impeach him if they win the house and senate. from the perspective of power, that might be the only thing keeping him from making this decision. he's clearly circling. >> mueller returns in a report turning to obstruction of justice, he has two guilty pleas and two people going to stand trial, you don't think the democrats would consider impeachment? >> i don't think mueller is going to have a final report until he sees what's happening in the midterm. what is the point of turnover that evidence to this

administration? >> it's a good point because mueller is not a cable news junky, in my experience with him. but he is not unaware that chris wray, who is a peer, a d.o.j.peer, he has been rebufd by paul ryan and devin nunes. why would bob mueller turnover something that is going to be some of the best prosecutors and investigators in america to people that appear immune or at best corrupt at worst. >> in the tank for this administration regardless of the facts. who are you going to give it to, devin nunes who is working with the white house? >> paul ryan a human shield to devin nunes. >> so, i think that i agree with you that he's probably going to wait until after the midterm elections. i do think that is true. i agree also that i don't know if democrats 100% will move to impeach the president. again, that is very difficult to remove the president.

you not only have to get the impeachment of the house you also have to get the conviction of the senate. democrats have a tricky question. the base of the democratic party will put pressure on democrats to do that. >> i think we're underestimating, though, the degree to which the trump strategy is succeeding. if the trump strategy is to discredit and to dee legitimatize whatever bob mueller comes out with, you know, let's face it, he has got the conservative media. he's got conservatives now, republicans in congress who have gone along with all that. so he has his base, whether that's 36 or 42% of the electorate who have already basically been preconditioned to disregard anything bob mueller comes out with. so, in terms of strategy, what is he better off? i imagine this is the way -- this is a conversation the oval office will go. if you fire bob mueller, you create a nixonian fire storm massacre. let it play out, week smear this investigation. we can blow it off. this is fake news.

we're going to get your friends in congress to basically run interference for you. >> charlie is suggesting that donald trump has impulse control. >> right. >> that he behaves according to strategy. i will say more to put a fire point on what charlie said, again to talk about charlie's old friend paul ryan, what this week has demonstrated, it's not just that he's trying to create a context in which there is doubt that's been summoned around the investigation. he's trying to kristen sze said not just for his base, but specifically for republicans in congress who could, if they were faced with a report from mueller that was damning or devastating could say we're not going to move to impeach because this investigation is bogus. what we learned this week, what history has written, we learned this week that paul ryan is on team bogus. he's on team nunes. he's on team discredit mueller. he's not on the side of truth. >> how did he get corrupted -- >> i know from my defense of paul ryan, i actually don't have

any. >> you scared me there for a second. >> he's obtuse or disingenuous. >> he's not stupid. do you think -- he's not dumb. he's none of those things. what is it? let me presz ys you. what is it? >> i don't know. he's basically linked his agenda so closely with donald trump that he feels the need to go this far. i understand basically saying we're going to appease donald trump as they want taxes. but why would he get -- >> he got taxes. >> why would he go in this deep on this obstruction of justice? >> i'm getting in trouble. barbara, let me give you the last word on rod rosenstein. he is someone who, not a household name. he may be about to be. do you think there is any chance that he quits, or do you think -- is there any chance that there is something we don't know about his role in all this? there was some speculation in legal circles he may already be recuse and h

recused and we don't know about it. could he be a witness mueller already talked to? could you give insider banter if he were to leave? >> i know rod rosenstein who is a career professional who has served honorably in democratic and republican administrations. i don't think everything he's done since becoming the deputy attorney general but i have always said to friends, in rod we trust. he is our last line of defense. i do trust him to act honorably. if he were to be fired, it could be very troublesome because we don't know who would replace him and who would then be over the russia investigation. i am sure he is tempted every day to resign just to be done with all of this and could be out in the private sector earning three or four times his current salary without these headaches. i think he is duty bound to stick it out to try to protect this investigation to the end. >> a person with honor, just the kind of person that ends up in donald trump's crosshairs. we're grateful to you. thank you so much. when we come back, putting

our heads together with, you guessed it, the russians. that cannot tri's top spy traveling to washington last week to meet with the head of, yes, our cia. this really happened. ( ♪ ) ♪ one is the only number ♪ that you'll ever need ♪ staying ahead isn't about waiting for a chance. it's about the one bold choice you make, that moves you forward. ( ♪ ) the one and only cadillac escalade. come in now for this exceptional offer on the cadillac escalade. get this low-mileage lease on this 2018 cadillac escalade from around $879 per month. visit your local cadillac dealer. with a $500,000 life insurance policy. how much do you think it cost him?

$100 a month? $75? $50? actually,duncan got his $500,000 for under $28 a month. less than a dollar a day. his secret? selectquote. in just minutes, a selectquote agent will comparison shop nearly a dozen highly-rated life insurance companies, and give you a choice of your five best rates. duncans wife cassie got a $750,000 policy for under $22 a month. give your family the security it needs at a price you can afford. 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.

russia's top spy is on the u.s. sanctions list. he isn't allowed to be in the united states without special permission. he's listed on the department of the treasury's blocked persons list. so, why was he here meeting with u.s. government officials? well, according to the washington post, two top russian spy chiefs traveled to washington last week to discuss counterterrorism issues with cia director mike pompeo, but the unusual visit also raised concerns among some u.s. officials that moscow could interpret the encounter as a sign the trump administration is willing to move beyond the issue of election interference. chuck schumer has his own concerns about the visit. he's demanding answers. >> this is a serious national

security issue. russia hacked our elections. we sanctioned the head of their foreign intelligence, and then the trump administration invites him to waltz through our front door. this is an extreme dereliction of duty by president trump who seems more intent on undermining the rule of law in this country than standing up to putin. >> and if you listen to the russians, no biggie. here's how the russian ambassador to the u.s. explained it in state media. quote, contacts between special services continued even at the most difficult times. politics will be politics, but everyday work will be everyday work. there are political slogans, but there is also some real work to do. the panel is city here. john, the real work of the russian spy agency was to meddle with our politics. >> yes. >> so, why are we meeting with them? can't we coordinate our syrian air strategy over the phone? >> yes, we could.

>> is it a coincidence we're not going to inforce our sanctions? >> no, that is certainly not a coincidence. look, the evidence -- we went through this thing yesterday where we talked about all of the various connections between the various nefarious ugly looking incriminating connections between trump and russia over the last two years that are just facts, not conspiracy theories, not some dossier. and this week the almost forgotten in all this other stuff that's happened including the state of the union is the fact we're not going to enforce those russia sanctions, an extraordinary thing, justise an extraordinary thing. and now this. i have no theory about what this is about. i have no idea, but it is so much part -- we as humans do pattern recognition. it is so much consistent with the large pattern of the odd, disturbing cozying up to russia that has happened from the moment donald trump stood on the national stage all the way up to

this very day as he sits there in the white house. >> my 6-year-old's pattern, this is like love, love, love, love, love, love, vladimir putin. let me just say in disclosure, my husband works in sanctions as it pertains to iran. this is not a president who doesn't believe in economic sanctions for our enemies. he doesn't believe russia is an enemy. >> you literally have mike pompeo telling the bbc on monday, russia intends to affect the midterm elections. he said this to the bbc and now he's letting -- look, if this were a bad action movie, i would have left the theater by now. you would think they're sticking jump drives in his laptop every time he goes to the bathroom. if you let the spy agency in directly responsible for affecting our elections on the same day the president says i'm not going to put through the sanctions that my own republican-led senate voted for, clear we just handed away our power, our sovereignty. ridiculous. >> we talked about the mueller investigation as though it has now been reduced to an obstruction of justice

investigation. but we also wonder aloud whether the obstruction of justice is ongoing. might the collusion also be ongoing? >> we know the attack is ongoing. that is what's most remarkable about tfrmt we know the russians are attacking our democracy. >> wait. i think we have pompeo saying that. let's watch pompeo. he says that. too. >> this threat is not going away. the russians have been at this a long time and i suspect they will continue to be add t. >> do you think they will try to affect the mid terms coming up? >> of course, i have every expectation they will try and do that, but i'm confident america will have a free and fair election. they will push back in a way that is sufficiently robust the impact they have on our election won't be great. >> what is extraordinary about that is that in explaining why they did not impose the sanctions earlier this week, the administration said that the law -- just passing the law was already having a deterrent

effect. you have the cia director saying they have not dee ferd from trying to attack our democratic process. so, clearly it is not having the effect of at least protecting. again, he stepped back from all the mueller investigation. the bottom line is that should this be a partisan issue? the president of the united states, the number one responsibility is to protect the national security of this country. we are under attack from the russians and this administration at every single turn downplays it, minimizes it and lies about what's been going on. >> at what point do we stop pretending there is a question about donald trump's affinity for putin? at what point do we really -- >> stopped that a year ago. >> but seriously, why do we have to act like there is something we don't know? i mean, we know that donald trump has harsher things to say about jeff sessions than vladimir putin. >> right. >> we know that donald trump has used that rose garden to lash out at people in his own cabinet

more often than he has ever lashed out at a foreign adversary. we know that he's for sanctions because he's really for reupping them against iran, where there's really mixed -- open question about whether they're complying. he's not antisanction. he's antisanctions against russia. we know why, right? >> absolutely we know why. like john i have not been asking those questions all year. i think i'm waiting for more facts. i take the new facts and place them up against all of the facts that we know. so, every single time there is a new revelation about russia, it sometimes as a regular human hard to keep up. somebody like us, we're nerds. we're dissecting all of it. so when you learn new information it's really important to look back at what we already knew. and every single time you learn something new, about a new meeting with a russian, contact with the russian, you put that up against what was happening at the time in the campaign and it looks even more suspicious than it would have already if the meeting was independent of anything else going on. and so i think that there is something there. donald trump is clearly trying to cover up something. i think anybody who says that that's not the case would be

lying. >> go ahead. last word. >> the question still needs to continue to be why. >> why did mike flynn lie, right. >> we know trump had this affinity for putin, wanted to be best buddies, wanted to be soft throughout. the question of why, there is obviously some evidence he was trying to do business in moscow for many years, he had economic interest there he was trying to exploit before he ran for president and maybe still. that's one thing. there's also the possibility suggested by the dossier, russians have compromise on him, material they're holding on him, through explicit or implicit threat of blackmail. those are still questions. we don't know why, but we know what. >> right, right. okay, that's a perfect segue to last night's state of the union where there was tiny, tiny mention of russia. we'll talk about that on the other side of the break.

your body was made for better things than rheumatiod arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests.

tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz xr can reduce the symptoms of ra, even without methotrexate. ask your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr.

wiback like it could used to? neutrogena hydro boost water gel. with hyaluronic acid it plumps skin cells with intense hydration and locks it in. for supple, hydrated skin. hydro boost. from neutrogena we are back. i was here late last night because the state of our union is, as philip bump describes it

from the washington post, trump can't figure out why the country he's dividing won't start uniting. each of the speeches called for unity, their scores in which trump bashes his political opponents and 50 tweets disparaging democrats, democratic politicians or left leaning values. managing employees however he saw fit, he's at a loss for why he should have to do something on his end to get americans to rally to his cause. he's the boss. charlie? >> well, you know, that speech last night was well written. it was well delivered. and now we can get back to real life again, right? here's a president who was trying to look states man like, trying to look bipartisan, a uniter. of course, donald trump is none of those things. i think that's part of the problem of all the evaluation and all the punditry. >> it's a ruse. >> you put him up. you have him read a speech. and, look, i know that the trump administration is now being measured in dog years. it feels like seven years ago. but remember when we sat here a

year ago analyzing his speech, people were saying how presidential he was? >> yeah. >> look at the promises he made. this is the night he became the president of the united states. spin around, there was no projectile. everybody thought it was fantastic. yet we continue to somehow think that the speech is removed from the donald trump that we have been watching for more than, 365 days now. >> this is the soft bigotry of expectation. because he didn't, you know, pull out his phone and attack chuck and nancy while he was reading, we were like, oh, it was so good. >> give him an a. >> it wasn't bad. b, the stories of what otto warmbier's parents have endured, their strength and grace in tragedy, those are universally tragic human experiences everyone can get behind. and donald trump is an historically unpopular president blowing apart every constitutional norm who gave a very mediocre speech last night. >> i have to be honest with you.

even when -- i know this is an unpopular thing to say. but even when he talks about and praises the soldiers, i remember the >> don't stop there. he also had a seven-day fight with a gold star widow because he didn't like the way she received his call or who she had in the car when he called to make -- offer his condolences. >> and i've been on record, i don't think you should walk away from the state of the union, but if you are going to go and hear the sears of lies and this white nationalist nonsense, when he talked about ms-13 and he mentioned heather hair and richard collins the third, killed 20 minutes from my house and a college student in the university of maryland, there are plenty of things that i think the democrats could have done last night in the face of such a tremendously offensive speech and they missed an opportunity. yes, we're going back to the norm of this president being offensive and grotesque and compromising our national

security and our national sovereignty but last night was a missed opportunity. that is before we get to joe kennedy. >> and let me press you. i want to ask you, why didn't they? >> i think they don't understand what resistance is supposed to look like. i think they think that, hey, if we just have a principle belief one way or another -- it doesn't work that way. >> we introduced them to hillary clinton and jeb bush. he wins because he fights asymmetrical wars. >> and he's willing to do what the other side won't do. >> that look? >> the constant facts is democrats are hopeless. they are terrible -- not just about resistance, but at politics, they are tearble at messages, they don't know what they stand for. it is like cats on mushrooms, this is not an organized political party. it is disgraceful and irresponsible and the democratic party is kind of lame. they have five responses to

trump. that is the most absurd -- seriously, what moron thought, hey, we have to go up against donald trump so let's have -- >> it is unpopular. >> bernie did his own response so he was the person consulting to decide to do that. donald trump has divided country for a year and for him to stand up there and play act president and that is what he's doing, play acting the role of president, it is another part he is playing. and that is why we're in such danger. >> i wish he would watch more movies and play a better president. >> this is an unpopular opinion but democrats are seriously underestimated the way in which the republicans are winning the messaging war right now on the tax cut. on tax -- you look at this monmouth poll, you show a swing not just on the -- the generic ballot but also on the tax cuts

and on trump. and right now every single story is emphasizing the bonuses, every single day and plus people are now looking at their paycheck and getting more money and i'm not hearing much from the democrats except -- the line this is just crumbs is just one of the worst talking points ever because people don't think that a thousand dollars is crumbs. >> here is the thing. everybody -- those 9,000 people that just lost their jobs at walmart don't care about the tax cuts. people at bank of america don't care and people won't get alzheimer's medicine because of pfizer -- they don't care. >> you should have given the response. a hell of a lot better than what i heard. >> and you didn't have to say you lie. you don't have to scream it. and this is unpopular and someone on the root said -- >> everybody needs to get off twitter. >> i have friends and colleagues there. essentially -- this president said the most offensive racist things in the world and you have black panther cause play and

that is your response. they wore the kinty cloth and scream and show some resistance. >> i'm not worried about being unpopular but as a communicator what i saw to be the strength of the democratic response -- and and i don't know who is up or down or what the politics were in the decision for a young kennedy to deliver that -- those remarks. what feels like for the democrats sort of the year of the woman. it seems like the purpose of purging al franken from the ranks was to have the high ground. so i might have considered -- i thought the strength of what he did -- that is a suicide mission. giving the -- marco rubio failed, bobby jindel failed and i realize just watching it because they make it about themselves. what i thought he did and i counted it, i don't remember right now, 13 we's, seven you's and zero i's. so one step at a time. the democrats have the message

back in order and the way to counter trump who is obsessed with himself. he is destroying the fbi because they are investigating him. he can't see past it. so if you want to try to sort of fight fire with water, making it about the country and i thought my favorite line in the speech is when he quoted the signs of the protesters. it was to me the 2018 version of i hear you. i see you. and so you have to start someone. and i don't know why i'm criticizing democrats. >> i'm a strong believer that god gave -- that if you are doing a speech, you can't have a marco rubio moment. the whole lip gloss thing was distracting. it wasn't popping. it was pulsating. >> it doesn't matter. >> they do matter. they do matter. and noticed it right away and i was like -- >> but let's be clear. yesterday we went into the speech saying this speech trump

speech -- and the democratic response, they will meaningless to how politics proceed from the next day forward. >> thank you. >> we are now the next day forward and i can't remember any of those speeches. none will matter two weeks or two months or two years from now. >> and we have to take a break so i can check my lipstick. we'll be right back. so that's the idea. what do you think? i don't like it. oh. nuh uh. yeah. ahhhhh. mm-mm. oh. yeah. ah. agh. d-d-d... no. hmmm.

uh... huh. yeah. uh... huh. in business, there are a lot of ways to say no. thank you so much. thank you. so we're doing it. yes. start saying yes to your company's best ideas. we help all types of businesses with money, tools and know-how to get business done. american express open. to get business done. people are fighting type 2 diabetes... with fitness... food... and the pill that starts with f. farxiga, along with diet and exercise, helps lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes.

lowering a1c by up to 1.2 points. do not take if allergic to farxiga. if you experience symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking and seek medical help right away. do not take farxiga if you have severe kidney problems, are on dialysis, or have bladder cancer. tell your doctor right away if you have blood or red color in your urine or pain while you urinate. farxiga can cause serious side effects including dehydration, genital yeast infections in women and men, serious urinary tract infections, low blood sugar, and kidney problems. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have signs of ketoacidosis which is serious and may lead to death. ask your doctor about the pill that starts with f and visit farxiga.com for savings. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

we're back. charlie, let's end where we started. it is tragic working in the white house after 9/11 and the

fbi worked 24 hours a day under robert mueller rule to prevent another terror attack and the question wasn't whether we would be attacked, it was when. what do you think watching the president. >> the damage to the institutions is long lasting. they've done so much to delegitimize them and we talk about the strength of our institutions and the institutions that are designed to keep us safe, they are under attack from this president. >> and those are our guard rails. all right. my thanks to charlie psychs and that does it for us. "mtp daily" starts right now. >> hi, nicolle. >> i saw you last night at 11:30. >> near my house there is a guard rail that goes out all of the time and we always put it back. >> see. >> i say that to myself every morning when i drive in, we could put the guard rail back. >> the president doesn't want to keep your guard rail going. >> but i could put