folks at spacex. sometimes there's so much crap out there that it makes you loose hope. i'm going to close off my day thinking about that, the rocket launch. so with that, i hand it over to my friend, nicolle wallace. hi, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. we come in the air following that dramatic rocket launch. if you have a son who wants to be an astronaut like i do, that's the biggest story of the day. other stories we're watching, brand-new reporting about the president's lawyers and their advice to donald trump not to meet with bob mueller's investigators. breaking news this hour about that looming government shutdown. in the kind of off-the-cuff kmoe comments that may lie at the heart of trump's lawyers' unease donald trump appeared to root for a shutdown as his chief of staff suggested some people in the country illegally are lazy. here's the president this afternoon at a roundtable event meant to address the threat of gangs. >> if we don't change the legislation, if we don't get rid

of these loopholes where killers are allowed to come into our country and continue to kill, gang members, and we're just talking about ms-13, there are many gang members that we don't even mention, if we don't change it, let's have a shutdown. we'll do a shutdown. and it's worth it for our country. i'd love to see a shutdown if we don't get this stuff taken care of. >> and ooers there's the presid chief of staff talking with reporters on capitol hill earlier today about some undocumented immigrants. >> there are 690,000 official daca registrants, and the president sent over what amounts to be 2 1/2 times that number to 1.8 million. the difference between 690,000, 1.8 million, were the people that some would say are too afraid to sign up, others would say we're too lazy to get off their asses but they didn't sign up. >> i guess we're way beyond bleep hole, so you can say asses

on tv today. joining us on both of our big stories, verizon best repoy bes analy analysts. from "the new york times," michael schmidt. from the "washington post," robert costa. john heilemann, nbc news and msnbc national affairs analyst. and sarah fagen, former white house political director for president george w. bush. jonathan, on the first story, the news today that the president appeared in a meeting designed, i gegs, to rally support for his immigration policies, by threatening a government shutdown. something that he criticized the democrats for doing three short weeks ago. >> right, criticized repeatedly for doing. it's another moment of this president's indiscipline, where he has a really hard time staying on a message, i mean, certainly they tout the shutdown, the crackdown on gangs, the big part of their immigration message. you know, he was linking that to the need for immigration reform. >> you always point out that immigrants commit fewer crimes. >> is of course.

>> than nonimmigrants. i know he likes to lump the two topics together when he talks about immigration policy. it's not the most honest case. >> it's a good disclaimer that we should be noting when the president does speak about immigration, illegal or otherwise. this is also something i think y you're seeing him, the white house looked upon the last shutdown sort of as a win. it seems like the. th in a strange way is almost embracing that again. looking -- >> let's do it again. >> looking for another victory, like that was a high water mark for us, let's shut down the government. although it must be said, part of the reason why that seemed to go well for the white house was the president wasn't out front. that he was very much played a behind-the-scenes role as the shutdown -- the onus of the shutdown was placed on the hill. here he is inserting himself. it's hard to idea -- it's going to be hard to rally americans around the idea we should shut down the government as a good thing, and that seems to be what he wants to be doing here. although i will note, just in the last few minutes from the white house podium, sarah huckabee sanders said the president was not advocating for a shutdown. that's not something that the white house wants. so, we're now having another moment where the president and his staff seem to be sending

different messages. >> i want to play something a republican in the room, barbara comstock, sarah and i know well from our time in republican politics. robert costa, i'd like you to explain this to me on the other side. let's watch first. >> we don't need a government shutdown on this. i think both sides have learned that a government shutdown was bad. it wasn't good for them. and we do have bipartisan support on these things. we can -- >> we are not getting support from the democrats. you can say if you want, we're not getting support from the democrats on this legislation. >> you will see -- >> it's one bill. we have to get that. they are not supporting us. >> robert costa, you understand the contours of the republican party under trump better than just about anyone. donald trump not backing down from barbara comstock who i think very appropriately challenged him that nobody who's sent to washington to govern benefits when the government shuts itself down under single party rule. >> nicolle, it was a raw and

revealing political moment. representative comstock represents many federal employees in northern virginia. she's one of the most house republic -- vulnerable house republicans ahead of this year's midterm elections. she knows she can't be embracing president trump's strategy or his positions on every issue. so that position, that kind of exchange today could actually help her in her difficult re-election battle. >> john heilemann, we wrote three leads for today's show. control room still reeling from -- >> have we figured out which one it is yet? >> we started with immigration here, but when we heard the chief of staff's comments come in, you never fell for the ruse that was, oh, john kelly is going to make donald trump more moderate, more acceptable. i mean, i think you were one of the first people to explain and understand, actually everybody here i think has written stories on this subject, that john kelly and donald trump are simpatico. they see illegal immigration -- >> on certain things. >> -- in very much the same way. to hear the white house chief of

staff describe some undocumented immigrants, people in the country illegally, as too lazy to sign up for the daca program, is -- is, you know, would in normal times be a top story. i mean, to blame the victims, these people are victims of being a political football. frankly between both parties for many years now. so, just speak to the fact that got a white house chief of staff calling people in the country illegal, many of them who came here as young children, lazy. >> well, to go back to simpatico, yes, i think on some issues, they are not simpatico certainly on the questions of sis pli discipline, with respect how the chief of staff would like the president to relate to allies on national security issues. very different. on issues that touch on race, that touch on culture, that touch on -- immigration is one that touches on both, they seem to be simpatico. this is not the first time the white house chief of staff expressed views that suggest he is very much in the stephen miller camp when it comes to immigration. he will say, i'm sure, that what

he said was some say this, and some say that. some say they're too afraid. some say they're too lazy. on one hand/on the other hand. that's what he will say. i think it's disturbing for there to be etven by implicatio the noegtion of the white house chief of staff, most powerful person in the country other than the president, to suggest daca people are simply too lazy, as he put it, to get off their ass which carries an emotional fraying that suggests maybe he's one of those people who thinks they're too lazy and not in the camp of the other one that he described which was the too afraid. >> so, sarah, we worked in a white house, and for a president that, you know, was very unpopular among all democrats and many republicans by the end. but i never, as his spokesperson, seven minutes after the president said something, went in and said something opposite, and there was never anyone on that white house staff who would have ever dared to call anyone in the country illegally, particularly

not dreamers, lazy. just speak to just the disgrace that is not just donald trump, but the people around him. >> well, that language is inappropriate. i mean, it's also not logical. >> not just the language, the sentiment. >> yeah, it's also just not logical. if you're here illegally, or without papers, you're thinking about it every minute of the day, right? >> right. >> you're worried about your future. so, i think there's a real disconnect with that statement. the one thing, you know, again, you know, as johnson pointed out, we were off on a trump tangent where he's making news about something other than he wants to be making news about, is donald trump in many ways, though, has the moral high ground on this issue relative to a government shutdown. on immigration relative to a government shutdown. 70% of the country agree with him. we need to have a fix on daca, we need to have strong borders, and we need the government to run. that should be his message. that's one of the reasons that

republicans were successful in the last republican -- or the last shutdown debate. they would be successful again later this week, but they can't get off on these tit for tats and pointing fingers and calling people names. >> robert costa, they can't not get off on the tangents because donald trump lives on a tangent. can you just bring us into the reality of where we stand? it's tuesday. the shutdown is looming. tell us -- tell us just sort of walk us through this sort of -- how we might end up there, where donald trump seems to want to take us. >> speaking with congressional republicans today, and their staffers, they're incredulous about how the white house is approaching the immigration issue because they tell me, and other reporters, that they're focuseded on a spending deal right now, there's progress on the spending deal and need to get the sending deal done first then they'll turn to immigration. for the white house to enter the discussions now, and start talking about all these different imgramigration demand rupture those talks and that alarms some republicans who

think they're pretty close to getting some kind of consensus. all right. now to the other big story this hour, it's finally something everyone can agree on, donald trump should never, ever testify under oath. not because he's irrelevant to the investigation, he is central, and questions about whether he obstructed justice by firing jim comey or covering up the real reason for don jr.'s meeting with russians is something the public has a right to know and special counsel bob mueller has a duty to find out. b but even donald trump's closest friends and highest profile surrogates don't trust him not to land himself in hot water. >> should the president sit down with him face-to-face? >> no. >> why not? >> i don't believe so. listen, i don't think there's been any allegations, credible allegations against the president of the united states, and i don't think the president of the united states, unless there are credible allegations, which i don't believe there are, should be sitting across from a special counsel. the presidency is different. i don't think they should do that. >> the idea of putting trump in the room with five or six hardened, very, very clever lawyers, all of whom are trying to trap him, would be a very,

very bad idea. >> and perhaps the greatest indignity of being managed by his friends and lawyers, donald trump really, really, really wants to talk to mueller. >> are you going to talk to mueller? >> i'm looking forward to it, actually. >> you want to? >> do you have a date set? >> here's the story, just so you understand, there's been no collusion whatsoever. there's no obstruction whatsoever. and i'm looking forward -- >> "the new york times'" michael schmidt and maggie haberman reporting today, "trump's lawyers want him to refuse an interview in the russia inquiry." writing "his lawyers are concerned that the president could be charged with lying to investigators." with nbc news confirming today one-time senior adviser steve bannon is likely to meet with mueller's investigators next week. bannon is quoted in "fire and fu fury" by author michael wolff saying this. "you realize where this is going, this is all about money laundering. mueller chose senior prosecutor

andrew wiseman first, he's a money laundering guy. their path to bleeping trump goes rite through paul manafort, don jr. and jared kushner. it's as plain as a hair on your face." maybe on your face, mr. bannon. michael schmidt, you had the big scoop last night. this is something i have to say, i've heard from chris christie i think on this show, other people, nobody thinks it's a good idea for the president to talk to the special counsel. what did you learn? >> as you sort of saw it today, there are concerns about the president's discipline, not only that he will tell the truth -- what? >> the understatement of the century. there are concerns he's going to end up giving them the obstruction of justice case on a platter. isn't that one of the concerns? >> but the other concern is that he likes to talk and that he would go on and on and try and explain himself and in the process of that, open up all sorts of avenues to mueller and allow them to probe into areas

that would be outside of what the president's lawyers think he should be questioned about. the question is is that is this a negotiating tactic? or do the lawyers realize that he is going to have to meet with mueller? and they're trying to put pressure on mueller to try and define the lanes of the road and give a sense of what he wants to ask about to give them a better sense to prepare him or purely going to be a stiff arm that ends up in the court? >> that's exactly what i'm going to ask you about. i want to put -- i think there are -- michael schmidt, you have interviewed the president at least twice, i went back and listened to the audio recording of the interview you and peter baker and maggie did. there is a strategy. john heilemann, you have interviewed donald trump on, what's it called, a zamboni. >> many times. not on the zamboni -- >> that one,watched the one where he talked about his big brawn. >> yep. >> robert cost a, he has called

you. there's a famous sbrinterview. julie did my favorite sbrir ein ever with the president, in the transcript says, hey, you got a diet coke? >> i'm okay, mr. president. >> i want to draw all of you out on -- don't give away any trade craft to ame, certainly not on tv, but there's a strategy for getting dronald trump to open u, mike b l chael schmidt. you got donald trump to say unbelievable things that he sees the justice department's real purpose in his mind to is to protect him. he's disappointed his doj doesn't function as he thinks that eric holder functioned for barack obama. as a protector of his. what do you think he wants to be protected from? >> well, that's really sort of the million-dollar question of the entire trump story and the mueller story is does the president -- is he saying this stuff because he has something to hide or does he simply just not like the idea of this investigation and thinks he can push it away?

is this someone that expects loyalty from everyone around him or is it he needs loyalty in this instance because he's done something wrong? that's where the story will really turn on. in terms of talking to the president, he's a very, very difficult person to interrupt. he likes to talk. he goes on and on. he talks about a lot of different subjects. he jumps from one thing to the other. he repeats himself, says things that are off color. he says things that are inaccurate and goes on to something else. it's very, very difficult to stop him and hold him accountable in a conversation like that. maybe if you have the power of have mean tha subpoena, you can do that. it's difficult in a journalistic interview. >> it might be a tacticstraintse bob mueller has. listening to you talk, if he's uninterrupt bl, i know bob mueller, he's not an interrupter. we don't know he would conduct the interview. might that be a strategy, you can see them saying, you could have an hour but that's it? >> you could see that, could try to do some this in written

questions where they'd submit them in writing. that would certainly take a lot of pressure off the president. at the end of the day, this is the part of the back and forth that go on between trump's lawyers and mueller as they try to get to something. the real question will be is if they say no, what will mueller do? will mueller go with a subpoena then will it end up in court, then go to the supreme court? ? you look back at the nixon tapes case, there is a precedent for the president having to comply with lawful, reasonable requests from law enforcement officials. >> john heilemann, what advice would you give someone who wants donald trump to be expansivexpas he often was in his interviews with you and mark halperin? >> i'm going to say two things really quickly, first of all, it's clearly a tactic, this is about the negotiation. they know he's going to have to go and talk to mueller. that's the first thing. second thing, the president as we know, not just about discipline, the president has lied, someone did a good count that i just looked at yesterday. >> we got it. >> the president's lied more than three times a day over the course of his -- >> i think we got that list.

>> on average, three times a day the president utters a falsehood without sitting in front of trained prosecutors, sharpest, most hardened lawyers. he lies reflexively, uncontrollably, he lies all the time. it's not like you have to have a perjury trap set up to get him to lie. he can't help himself. he lies constantly. those are part of the reasons why they want to try to limit. that's part of why this is all a tactic. i would say when you go to sit down with trump, there are a couple things to do. first, you got to watch fox news in the immediate hours right before you sit down with him, because whatever was on television in the immediate hour or two -- >> did you do that? >> always. he'd always been watching television. he watches television relentl s relentlessly. he's going to have fresh in his mind whatever the hosts at fox said. that's not advice to mueller. >> why not? >> the ambient reality. the other thing, bring a lunch. unless there's a set timeframe, he will, as mike schmidt suggested, he'll go on forever. he's hard to interrupt. he'll never, even when you have a set time, he'll get half an hour, it turns into an hour. if you have an hour, it turns into an hour and a half.

he loves to talk. and the third thing, the most obvious thing in the world, again, this is not good advice to bob mueller, if you want him to be expansivexpansive, flatte. just say something to him that makes him feel, that plays to his vanity. once he has anything that suggests that you are acknowledging some accomplishment of his in the past, something in the political context, where he's had a victimvy, and when he was running for office, it's easy to do because he was winning a lot back in 2016. 2015. you point to things and you can immediately, you are in the door with him. with him starting to want to bubble over with discussions of himself and then you can start to kind of push the discussion in a direction that you want to push it. >> robert costa, with him starting to want to bubb-- >> he thinks is being underrepresented which is his own innocence. i imagine him being something of

sort of a dream witness in bob mueller's hands or the hands of bob mueller's investigators. >> based on my experiences interviewing president trump over the years, you learn a few things, one, he loves to talk on the telephone. he spent most of his -- most decades at trump tower on the phone talking to clichbents and friends. did not use a computer on the 26th floor. as in mike bchaemichael's inter shows, h e likes talking in settings he enjoys especially his properties. one of the most expansive interviews he gave at the woe "washington post" came at his golf club in northern virginia. i found president trump is different at times when there's a camera in the room whereas if you're there as a print report were the pad. he's not playing to the kacamer because there's no camera there when you're doing a print-only interview and sometimes he gives sharper answers. >> that's right. establishing the comfort in the room is part of it, like you said, you don't want to over top flatter. just remember, he plays to the room. once he feels comfortable, he can change his tone and tenor

depending who he's talking to. a very different donald trump if you're having a one-on-one interview in his 26th floor trump tower office versus the donald trump you see on the stage of a rally in front of 15,000 screaming fans. so that's part of it, too. he is someone who can filibuster. he can go on and on. and on. he is someone who can lie. and it's hard to fact check him in realtime. an interviewer, you can't, because you're going to use your whole time trying to fact check him. at any moment, he might say, well, that's it, i'm walking out. >> like he did to john dickerson. when the interviews turns antagonistic he walks out. >> the dynamic will be different here. >> bob mueller doesn't need to fact check him because he has the interviews of dozens of other witnesses. >> the facts are behind the glass door. the president doesn't know that. the president doesn't know what he -- mueller already has. and that is the sense of alarm among members of his legal team and certainly his outside advisers who are making this case to him to not sit down. they're doing it on television, but they're also doing it privately in those phone calls we know he has every night in the white house residence. people around him are saying don't sit down with mueller. >> sarah, i heard a story about

donald trump in one of his intelligence briefings during the campaign. the dynamic was very much of donald trump trying to win them over. so they briefed him, but he offered to take selfies with -- it was a big briefing, so i think he was -- it was a general briefing. he was briefed on different areas. it was late in the general election. and he set out to win over everybody in that briefing. >> feed you, have a hot dog, have this, have that. >> have a bacon cheeseburger. what would your advice be if you were on the senior staff of this white house about donald trump sitting down with bob mueller? >> i think the entire strategy, i do think this is a tactic as john pointed out, is it make sure his interview is not under oath. there's precedent for this. previous presidents who've had to be interviewed -- >> what would the point be if he could lie? >> so if he's not a target of the investigation, and right now, there's no -- there is not a suggestion that he's a target. he would certainly be a witness to perhaps another target.

that he's the president of the united states and, you know, you could see a scenario where they would agree for him to be interviewed in the oval office for an hour, not under oath. this has happened before. that should be the entire strategy. i do believe he's going to have to be interviewed. and that's where they need to get to for him and for the sake of the administration. >> what about for the sake of getting to the bottom of whether or not russia meddled in h the electi election? >> well, in some ways those issues have certainly intertwined, but in some ways they're separate, too. and so, you know, having the president under oath, i don't think is going to be determinative of whether we find out whether russia -- we know russia interfered in the election. i don't -- that is no longer really debatable. >> you don't think he's an important witness in finding out what he knew -- >> he's an important witness but i don't think it's imperative he be under oath because he's not a target. >> it's not clear to me -- >> you could also subpoena him later if you thought he was

about to become a target. >> it's not clear to me if you're -- literally don't know the answer to this question, it's not clear to me, if you go before congress whether you're under oath or not, still testifying before congress, you can't lie to congress. it's not clear in this space, the special prosecutor's -- >> i think it's still a crime to lie to a special counsel. >> whether you're under oath or not, you can't lie to the special prosecutor. >> michael schmidt? >> even if you're not under oath, you can't lie to congress, even if you're not under oath before the fbi, you can't lie to the fbi. that's lying to a federal authority. you can be prosecuted for it. marion jones was prosecuted for it. >> michael schmidt, what i want to ask you about, do you think -- i gave up believing in coincidences, so i don't think it's a coincidence. i wonder, the negotiations that we believe to be under way between steve bannon's lawyers and the house intel committee are all around the squoep of the their line of questioning. the exertion of privilege, what that interview will include. but we do know that steve bannon is likely to meet with bob

mueller next week. and i wonder if you think that steve bannon's testimony before bob mueller when he made public to michael wolff his concerns about money laundering in the clip that i read, but also, you know, he called don jr.'s actions treasonous. he suggested with a degree of confidence that there was money laundering under way, that paul manafort and jared were involved in it. he certainly -- he certainly characterized himself as someone who knew of a lot of misdeeds by a lot of people. how important do you think he is to the mueller investigation at this phase? >> i really don't think we know. if you look at the michael wolff book, it seems like it's a lot of conjecture, a lot of, well, i think this may be a possibility, this is where it could be headed. certainly, if you're running an investigation, you're going to want to know why he believes that. what is it that got steve bannon to that point that he thinks money laundering is so central to that? he doesn't put a lot of meat on

the bone of those accusations that come up in the michael wolff book, so that is what he'll be asked about among many different things. why do you really think that, what is it that got you to that? i'm not sure if there's anything between the two. i think what the white house is going to do, they're going to exert privilege on a lot of what bannon would call congress but not to mueller. they tried to cooperate as much as possible with mueller but used privileges to try and stop congress. that's a showdown that will go on and probably be a bit of a distraction like a lot of things going on on the hill right now. it will come down to what he tells mueller, how much bannon really knows. a lot of stuff in the book is kind of a lot of, you know, huffing and puffing but not a lot of meat on the bone. >> your"associated press" and t "washington post" put meat on the bone, that is the firing of jim comey. steve bannon was on the senior staff when the decision was made to fire jim comey. we know through reporting, and

don't hold me to it, i believe all of you have reported on steve bannon not being a fan of the advice that donald trump got to fire jim comey. one of the people who gave him that advice was jared kushner. i'm told the person perhaps with the most at stake has been and goes before the mueller investigation might be jared kushner. >> certainly. there's no love lost between steve bannon and jared kushner which is a significant understatement. yes, we know from our reporting that steve bannon, that former chief of staff reince priebus, were opposed to this firing thinking it would bring far more harm than good. jared kushner was not necessarily the leading voice but approved of the decision to do so, backed up his father-in-l father-in-law's decision to fire the director and a school of thought in the white house this might be popular among democrats because they were mad at comey for throwing the election to hillary clinton last year. >> a terrible political strategist. as michael said, we don't know what that proves. >> the political instincts were off at the minimum. >> at best. >> and we do know that as much as they're associating, as bannon is negotiating what he will say when he appears before

congress, people around him have given us the cig that that whsi sits down with mueller he'll tell them everybody he knows. >> collusion, and obstruction. the collusion stuff, bannon is mostly conjecturing. weren't around for a lot of the key events. not central. the obstruction case in terms of what happened with comey and the crafting of that letter from air force one about the june meet g meeting, retrospectively, on the obstruction case, i think bannon has a lot of stuff to say. >> he was certainly there. michael schmidt, incredible reporting. robert costa, yours is always amazing. thank you for being with us. thank you both for starting us off. when we come back, more memo fallout after a unanimous vote in the house intel committee to release the democratic memo. all eyes are on the white house to see if the president still believes in transparency. and smearing a spy. the real-life consequences on our intelligence and law enforcement capabilities when we out and smear a source. today, innovation in the finger lakes is helping build the new new york.

once home to the world's image center, new york state is now a leader in optics, photonics and imaging. fueled by strong university partnerships, providing the world's best talent. and supported with workforce development to create even more opportunities. all across new york state, we're building the new new york. to grow your business with us in new york state, visit esd.ny.gov.

the republican memo was written to make sure -- >> we're learning this hour that the president met with deputy attorney general rod rosenstein to discuss the democrats' rebuttal memo. the house intel committee voted unanimously yesterday to release the minority's memo. now the clock is ticking for the president who now has just four days to decide whether or not to declassify it. house speaker paul ryan would not respond directly about whether the new memo should also be declassified. >> the republican memo was written to make sure that sources and methods were not compromised so that full d disclosure could occur. question don we don't know whether that's the case for the democratic memo. has to go through the scrubbing process. >> that's not true. chris wray opposed releasing the nunes memo unredacted for that very reason, that sources and methods would be compromised and they were. in the "washington post," columnists and former president jb skbgeorge w. bush aide writet

the cowardic among republicans and saying "by his recent actions the speaker has provided political cover for a weak bening of the constitutional order. he's been used as a tool. the way ryan is headed, history offers two possible verdicts. either he enabled an autocrat or intimidated by a fool." the panel is still here. harsh words from former white house league, mike gerson. >> those are harsh words. i don't think they're entirely fair. i think paul ryan -- >> really? what's the best defense of paul ryan ignoring chris wray, fbi director, also a trump appointee's advice to not release it and retact dact it? >> perspective of the house, by the speaker, by some in the house republicans on the intel committee is that memo was written with sources and methods not included in a way that would compromise. i realize the fbi, obviously, important voice, has a different view on that, but overall, i think, you know, the concern among many republicans is that

this dossier even though it's been proven that it was only one reason for the warrant, you know, is politics entering into the legal system, into the justice system and you have political opponents now putting information that allows others in the opposite party to be surveilled, and that is deeply concerning, and i think that's where the speaker's concerned. >> isn't it troubling, john heilemann, that the just sort of the ignorance that's revealed through this whole episode, nobody was convicted because the dossier was -- the standard for receiving a fisa warrant is probable cause. so the dossier, which was provided to the fbi by a source who's not just credible to american intelligence, not just credible to american -- credible all over the world because he's a former british spy. and he's an expert in russia. the standard was probable cause. the dossier has not been proven false. third of it's been proven true. and the idea that they would -- they would -- that paul rioye

ryan -- donald trump i truly believe doesn't know any better. i believe he's the hamburger eating zamboni riding loon we see. >> paul ryan's behavior has been disgraceful. the reality is, really, it's really the case people are going to stand up there was no probable cause to surveil carter page on the merits, on the history, the guy who back in 2013 was writing, bragging about the fact he was an informal adviser to the kremlin? the fisa court looked at a wide array of evidence and granted surveillance on multiple occasions under republican leadership in the fbi, and it stretched back not in the start of october 2016, the buildup on this went on for years. this guy -- >> 2013. >> this guy -- this guy's behavior was the kind of behavior that in any other instance if it wasn't for the fact that donald trump was unhappy about it, any other instance, every republican in the world would say, of course, there should be surveillance on this guy, it looks like he's doing business with russian spies. >> the problem if many

republicans on the intelligence committee is they didn't look at all the underlying evidence. they looked at the dossier. the dossier was funded by, you know, lawyers, by the dnc -- >> we should say -- we should always tell the whole story about the dossier. the fusion gps product, which is what's named in the nunes memo, the first client of fusion gps was paul singer, a prolific republican donor. and it was taken over by free beacon, and, yes, by the time a british spy was involved, who didn't know who he was working for, by the way, the account, the gps account, had been taken over by the democrats. but that doesn't -- i mean -- >> but it's also important to point that out. >> of course, it is. >> that is where republicans -- >> that was pointed out to the judge. >> it doesn't speak to the underlying validity of the claims. every campaign i have ever covered, i had opo pedaled to me by republicans and by democrats. >> sure. >> i look at the opo and say, is it true or not true? i couldn't care less where it comes from. either i verify it and it's real

or i don't verify it. chris steele is obviously someone with enormous credibility in the intelligence community, apart from all of a sudden some republicans decide a guy who has a huge career, reputable in the intelligence circles. all of a sudden that guy is not to be trusted. again, the courts -- >> that's a very valid point. >> let me ask you something, let me put you on the spot. you and i were involved in campaigns, trafficked in opposition research about our opponents. did you ever suggestion peddling anything to a reporter that wasn't true? >> no. >> exactly. >> so should we then have not take ben yon your opo seriously? it it's tr it if it it's true, it's true. >> there's a big difference, in fairness. >> the indictment of the dossier is it was opposition research. you and i worked on campaigns at the highest levels. to be effective, it must be true. >> yes, it must -- i mean, there's been a lot of things pointed out in that dossier that may or may not be true, but

setting that aside, i -- >> stormy daniels suggests the most salacious probably are true. i'm serious. that -- let's just be real here. it is thought of not being true because of the golden showers and the sex. okay? let's just lay it out. i think that the stormy daniels and the $130,000 payment to a por netwopo rr p porn star make the most salacious things among the most credible. >> certainly they're worth revisiting. you're right. when the dossier was first released to the world on the interpret a ye internet, a year and a half ago, people discounted it, that can't be true, that can't be true. you learn more and more about donald trump's private life, you think it's possible it could be true. >> i wish it stayed private. i want to unhear all these things. "the wall street journal" reported on the payment to stormy daniels. the dossier gets discounted because of the salacious things. frankly, what we learned since its publication on buzzfeed, most salacious things may be the most believable. >> this is the great debate this exposed, the question is, does

providence matter? does -- where it come from, does who funds it, and, again, i'll just say, you know, in our jobs, if you cover presidential campaigns, you're constantly being given opo that serves the interest of either the republicans or the democrats. it's a daily occurrence. you brook look at, you say, rep out, investigate it. if it turns out to be true, you write the story. if it turns out -- >> not an everyday occurrence that the federal judge -- >> not that the judge -- the judge was told there was reporting -- >> the judge -- are you for or against the democratic memo coming out? >> i'm for it. if i were working for donald trump, i would say we're going to release both of these at the same time so the american public can make their own decision about this. >> so transparency has to fit -- >> yes. i think you now have to do it. i mean, unless there's something in it, which, of course, he could redact. >> sure. >> that really was compromising, real really problematic. i think he has to release it. all right.

when we come back, a former member of the cia's clandestine services weighs in on the price our country could pay for smearing a spy. [ click, keyboard clacking ] [ click, keyboard clacking ] [ keyboard clacking ] [ click, keyboard clacking ] ♪ good questions lead to good answers. our advisors can help you find both.

talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future. yours.

talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future. your heart doesn't only belong ♪to you. bye grandpa. and if you have heart failure, entrusting your heart to entresto may help. entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. in the largest heart failure study ever, entresto was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital compared to a leading heart failure medicine. don't take entresto if pregnant. it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren. if you've had angioedema while taking an ace or arb medicine, don't take entresto. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto. and help make more tomorrows possible.

♪ well, we await to hear the fate of the democrats' rebuttal memo, many are dissecting the nunes memo. one writing, the smears against christopher steele are unfounded and could have severe consequences. he writes, "needless to say the nunes memo and breathless public statements hurt our standing in the world. our intelligence collectors will have a harder time convincing potential sources or foreign liaison partners to trust us with their information. whether or not steele was an fbi source, the memo gives the impression that the u.s. congress and white house were willing to smear those who take risks to give us information for their political gain." joining us now is john cipher, former member of the cia senior intelligence service, deputy of the agency's worldwide operations effort, and benjamin

wittis, msnbc legal analyst, editor and chief of "law fair." john, let me start you. let me ask you, so i heard from a doj source that the impact is immediate. the potential consequences are severe and that a source may still work with the u.s. government but they may say, hey, do not put any of this information in a fisa application. >> well, that's certainly possible. i mean, you know, what we benefit from overseas when we look and talk to sources and we deal with liaison partners, people who help us overseas, is credibility, reliability, and building trust. and you build trust by over time taking things seriously and keeping them secret. and when it -- when the head of the house intelligence committee is willing to openly, you know, smear a source, this tears at our credibility and makes it much harder for our partners to take us seriously. >> john, you mentioned credibility and reliability. are we viewed as being led by a president who's either of those things? >> well, i -- i can tell you my opinion. i think people are very worried.

i think, we're talk bing about e mem know now. mr. nunes said steele was a source and openly out him. i think the allegations that hatched in the oval office where president trump talked to the russians about sensitive information, i think that also had a really damning and dangerous effect on our credibility overseas. >> you spent your career connecting the dots. i only learned about the importance of it serving in the bush white house after 9/11. let me ask you a serious question, can you connect the dots between this administration refusing to enforce russia sanctions, the insistence on getting out the nunes memo, with if you take the president by his own word, is to vindicate him from the russia investigation? and the fbi director, trump appointee, being publicly rebuffed by the speaker of the house and by the president when he asked to protect sources and methods? what does that look like to you? >> well, there is a clear narrative of collusion in the

steele dossier sort of puts that together, so you have the best service in the world at blackmail. you have a president who is uniquely vulnerable to blackmail and extortion. we saw that with the stormy daniels saga. we have people around the trump campaign that clearly were willing to take stolen information from an american source by a hostile power, and, in fact, mr. steele as a foreign government person gave information to the fbi when nobody in the trump campaign ever thought to do the right thing and do that. then we obviously have people when the information comes up lying and doing cover-ups and then attacking those institutions that can hold someone accountable. so i think that narrative of collusion is quite, quite strong, and when you add on to that the president's working with russia and his unwillingness to accept the overwhelming evidence of russian attacks on our system, yeah, it's very troubling. >> ben, i want to bring you in on this topic but i also want to get to the incredible piece on

"law fair" this week, but let me get your thoughts about what we're talking about. and let me ask your opinion as someone who knows full well the consequences of overriding, publicly turning down an fbi director's near desperate pleas to first paul ryan, no the to release this memo, then to devin nunes, the chairman of the house intel committee, to simply brief the members of the committee about the consequences of releasing the memo, and then to the president and the white house, himself. what do you think now, as you watch sort of the post-nunes armageddon, if you will, and as you look at the politics with four days on the clock for the rebuttal memo to come out? what do you hope to see? >> yeah, so, look, in the wake of watergate, that was a great bargain struck between congress and the executive branch. and the bargain was we will set

up these very secure oversight mechanisms. they will not leak and they will behave responsibly and they will tell the truth when the agencies are behaving within the law and are acting responsibly. they will validate for them. and in exchange, the agencies will give them the crown jewels. they'll give them all the most sensitive secrets in the government. and this episode represents a profound portrayal of that grand bargain because what happened here was that the chairman of the intelligence committee with the active involvement of the president of the united states took that highly secret information, made it public, as john points out, at the expense of burning and smearing a source, and did so in the

service of what are almost certainly lies and untruths about the conduct of the intelligence community which continues to maintain it was behaving appropriately. and that is, you know, that is a moment in the history of the intelligence oversight system and it is not a happy moment, and i worry that that system cannot sustain the kind of abuse that it saw over the last week. >> it all right. i also want to ask you about your piece in "law fair," through a freedom of information about request, you reviewed poeover 100 pages of e-mails of fbi staff showing realtime reactions to director comey's firing. what did you find? >> well, what we found is not a single special agent in charge of a field office, not a single head of a division at the fbi sent a notice to staff expressing happiness that this

had happened. there was a lot of grief and sadness and shock and it really shows that the white house's claims at the time, sarah huckabee sanders and the president, you know, got up in front of the american people and lied about the fbi. and, you know, these documents show what the real reaction was, and it was not people, you know, calling sarah huckabee sanders in gratitude and it does not reflect, as the president said, an agency that was in turmoil and that had lost confidence in the director. >> and andy mccabe testified to that. i mean, there is -- there is on-the-record testimony from then-acting director mccabe saying just what you said. >> correct. a few days after comey was fired, there was a single person who went up to congress and told the truth. >> do you think that's why he got fired? >> well, you know, i think the president already disliked him because, you know, the president doesn't -- doesn't believe it's okay to have a wife who's a

democrat. >> right. >> which andy mccabe appears to, you know, have a wife who's a, you know, who ran for office as a democrat. that's apparently unacceptable to the president. but i'm sure it was but i'm sure it was perceived as a slap in the face to the president, but what he was saying, unlike what the president was saying, and unlike what the president's deputy press secretary was saying, was fully county with the tone of the e-mails that we got over the weekend and published yesterday. >> will you please both come back early and offer? the president responding to the claim that senators we treasonous for not applauding enough. and one democrat hit him back with a nickname that might stick. it is time now for "your

business of the week." million dollar baby designs cribs for some of the biggest celebrities. how they moved from china to the u.s. and founded this multimillion family business. for more watch "your business" weekday mornings on msnbc. 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.

we know that when you're spending time with the grandkids to get business done. every minute counts. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why we show you exactly when we'll be there. saving you time, so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪

un-american. someone said treasonous, i guess, why not. can we call that treason? why shot. a comment brought to the president brought to you yesterday suggesting it was treasonous that senators did not stand or applaud.

preserve and protect the to the united states. quite a smack back. we have the state of the memo this hour. >> senator sanders this afternoon says he has. he has read it or been briefed on it. the white house is saying they're going to follow the same process they're going to do with the republican memo, which is the national security council. they do expect to release it in the coming days. two differences from the republican memo. this one will probably have reda redactions. and unlike the last memo that

the president championed, at least to this point, he is taking a far more hands off role. >> is there any peril, i'm guessing it will be redacted. but do you think there is any problem in terms of the optics. >> they wanted some, do you think there is any danger in redacting things? >> i think it looks like you're trying to hide things, and it sounds like favoritism and politics. >> we have to sneak in one more gre break, we'll be right back. $1.50 futures contracts? what about a dedicated service team

of trading specialists? did you say yes? good, then it's time for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. looks like we have a couple seconds left. let's do some card twirling twirling cards e*trade. the original place to invest online.

i'm mark and i quit smoking with chantix. i tried, um, cold turkey. i tried the patches. i was tired and i was fed up. i wanted to try something different. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking.

chantix reduced my urge to smoke. compared to the nicotine patch, chantix helped significantly more people quit smoking. when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. i'm finally free of smoking. ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.

we're out of time, thank you to our guests, that does it for our hour, "mtp daily" starts right now. >> hi, nicole, we're trying to figure out seriously, literally, figuratively, transactionally what is going on. we're confused. >> you are? >> if it is tuesday, we can't take the president literally and that's a serious problem. >> the president seems to be once again rooting for a shut down, should we take this seriously. >> i would love to see a shut down if we don't get this taken care of. >> plus bubble bubble toil a