and with that, that is our broadcast for this friday night and for this week. thank you so very much for being here with us. have a good weekend and good night from nbc news headquarters here in new york. we are covering breaking news this hour. one trump adviser summing up the seismic nature of today's indictment this way, saying to me it's case closed on the question of russian meddling and offering that bob mueller effectively ended the debate about whether russia did indeed meddle in our democracy.

suggesting it will become awkward at best for the president to continue to call the investigation a hoax. now that a grand jury was convinced by bob mueller and his investigators who presented this evidence to them, and to which they responded with today's indictments. deputy attorney general rod rosenstein took to the d.o.j. podium and announced the charges. >> the defendants allegedly conducted what they called information warfare against the united states, with the stated goal of spreading distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general. they used stolen or fictitious american identities, fraudulent bank accounts, and false identification documents. the defendants posed as political and socially active americans advocating for particular candidates. they established social media pages and groups to communicate with unwitting americans. >> were campaign officials cooperative or were they duped? what's their relationship with this? >> there is no allegation in this indictment that any american had any knowledge, and the nature of the scheme was the defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear that

they were ordinary american political activists, even going so far as to base their activities on a virtual private network here in the united states. if anybody traced it back to the first jump, they appeared to be americans. >> the charging documents going even one step farther, saying those russians communicated with unwitting trump campaign associates in their meddling efforts. president trump responded with a tweet just in the last hour writing, quote, russia started their anti-u.s. campaign in 2014, long before i announced that i would run for president. the results of the election were not impacted. the trump campaign did nothing wrong. no collusion. the president ignoring shouted questions from reporters moments ago as he departed for florida. >> mr. president, will you punish russia? >> do you feel vindicated, mr. president? come over and talk! >> will you punish russia? >> will you put sanctions on russia?

nothing on russia, mr. president? >> join us for tea? >> former cia director john brennan sounded the alarm a year ago wittingly or unwittingly trump campaign officials may have colluded with russia in the 2016 elections. today rod rosenstein appeared to conform his fears. former cia director john brennan has responded to the news, tweeting d.o.j. statement and indictments reveal the extent and motivations of russian interference in the 2016 election. claims of a hoax in tatters. my take, implausible they did not influence the views and votes of at least some americans. former cia director john brennan joins us now by phone. let me start with your take on today's indictments, the significance and what you think they portend for the year future. >> first of all, our hearts are still grieving over the parkland

florida shootings. i'm hoping there are going to be actions taken to prevent such events from happening in the future. i think the indictments do several things. one is that they really do validate the findings of the intelligence community in terms of russian interference as well as the motivations for it. secondly, it shows that bob mueller and the investigative team have really done a great job as far as uncovering the extent and depth of russian engagement involvement. and also the relatively sophisticated manner russia carried out these tactics. third, i think it just is indicative that this investigation is ongoing. it's making progress, and today's indictments i don't think are going to be the last word by any stretch. so i am expecting that there are going to be more things coming out in the weeks ahead. >> director, i want to ask you, because when we replay as we often do your testimony, it was always so careful when you spoke to the question of what you knew while the presidential campaign

was in its full throated heat in the summer of 2016, the fall of 2016. there has been extensive reporting now about how the obama administration grappled with what you knew to be true about russian meddling. based on just the body of information that you all knew as an intelligence community, how significant is it that this is becoming public now? and how much more should the public expect to learn? >> well, i think it just demonstrates that the work that was done by the intelligence community as well as by the fbi during this campaign really was able to identify russian activities, and that this puts a lie to putin's claims that russia didn't interfere at all. the extent of the activity, the number of russians who were invited, the types of activities that they engaged in with u.s. officials or u.s. persons who, as rod rosenstein said,

were unwitting of the affiliation. i think this is, again, an indication of just how determined the russians were to undermine the integrity of the election, harm hillary clinton, and to enhance the prospects for donald trump's election. >> is unwittingly a term of art, to allow investigators to get as close as they can to the trump campaign, especially the three former campaign officials who have now pleaded guilty? could they help bob mueller get to the bottom of whether the trump campaign wittingly or unwittingly cooperated with the 13 individuals who were indicted today? >> well, yes. russian intelligence services frequently will cultivate relationships with individuals. they don't reveal russian intelligence connections. a lot of these individuals played along with. i think as the fbi team does the interviews of people, i think some lights were going off in

people's minds about exactly what they were involved in. i do think that, you know, while some may have been unwitting, i do think the investigation is going to reveal that some individuals were knowledgeable about what they were doing and they basically strayed from what they should have been doing. this is a typical tactic of russian intelligence services to try to get close to individuals, that they're trying to influence, and to use various ways, false flags, as a way to befriend individuals and get individuals to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. >> director, i just want to underscore what you just said and make sure i understood it clearly. you believe that while today's news is that the 13 indicted russian nationals may have cooperated with, i believe the indictments named three campaign officials who were aware who they interacted with unwittingly, you believe that at the end of bob mueller's investigation, it will be revealed that there were trump

campaign associates with knowledge of their actions? >> oh, i don't know that, but i just know rod rosenstein today is very careful and very decisive in words that he used in terms of the indictment of the individuals and this indictment of the individuals who may have been cooperating with the russians were unaware of it. that doesn't mean that there's not going to be further indictments. it doesn't mean that there's not going to be further revelations about individuals who might have been interacting with russians. and so we will see whether or not individuals inside the campaign or outside the campaign were aware of what they were doing, but yet continue to do that. >> director brennan, we are so grateful to have your insights on a day like today. thank you so much for spending some time with us. >> thanks so much, nicolle. >> let's return to reporters and guests with us from the white house, nbc's kristen welker, also joining us associated press white house reporter ken thomas, nbc's ken dilanian is also with us.

from the daily beast, betsy woodruff, also an msnbc contributor. chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney, former senior official at the fbi who worked on the staffs of both robert mueller and james comey and now an msnbc contributor and matt miller, msnbc legal analyst and former chief spokesman at the justice department. an embarrassment of riches. kristen welker, i have to start with you. i watched the president give a signature move there, the thumbs up. i heard your shouted questions and i wonder if anyone was surprised that today wasn't the day that he walked up and offered any comments. >> well, we thought we had a shot today, nicolle. there's no doubt about that. in part because of the statement that you saw coming out of the white house and that tweet that he sent out, they are now making the case that this proof that there was no collusion.

of course, the investigation is ongoing. but we thought perhaps he would say something on camera. it's worth noting, nicolle, this white house hasn't answered our questions since tuesday. that's the last time we had a briefing here. and so we are very anxious to be able to talk not only to the president, but to some of his top officials here to get their broader response to what we learned today. now, in terms of the reaction that we're getting from his legal team, john dowd, the president's outside attorney saying that the president was happy with how this was handled. he thinks, quote-unquote, the reference to bob mueller. he was briefed earlier today by the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. one white house official told me that is an indication that they see him as a part of the process and not a part of the problem. those are talking points that we're getting from the white house. what we didn't see in that tweet, in that statement, that the administration put out was an acknowledgment of the fact that russia, in fact, did meddle in the u.s. election. and an acknowledgment there need to be next steps. what will this white house do to prevent it from happening again, particularly with the midterms looming. will they, in fact, enact sanctions, something that has been passed in congress and a

lot of republicans would like to see this president enact those sanctions quickly. and so there's going to be a lot of pressure on next steps. this is obviously something that has roiled this white house. it has gotten closer and closer to the oval office. we know that the president's former top aide steve bannon met with bob mueller for some 20 hours in recent days. and, of course, we know that the president and his legal team are trying to determine what, if any type of interview, he will grant to robert mueller. so all of those issues are looming large as this administration still processes this very significant news, these 13 indictments in the russia probe. >> thank you, kristen. chuck, i want to get to you. there's nothing normal about the white house response. and even for a white house that doesn't do very many normal things, the normal thing to do when a foreign adversary is indicted for committing crimes, particularly crimes that were aimed at distorting or affecting your democracy, is to do what president obama did.

i think in his final weeks of his administration, he announced sanctions. he shuttered two russian homes or places that they used for their activities. how jarring is it inside law enforcement and inside the intelligence community or maybe not at all when it comes to donald trump, to have the indictments that you had today and to have the response from the president be all about the president? >> well, i've come to expect some of that, nicolle, but yes, it's incredibly jarring. now, there may be things that our government is doing that we don't know about to sort of get back at the russian information warfare detailed in this indictment. but to your point, there are sections in this indictment -- and i think everyone should read it -- about the ways, manners, means of the conspiracy. there is a section about the objects of the conspiracy.

guess what section doesn't appear? the vindication section. there is nothing in this indictment that vindicates anybody. indictments don't vindicate people. indictments charge people with crimes. in this case, russian officials and russian organizations. so the notion that you would read this thing and claim vindication strikes me as silly, crazy. >> let me ask you a follow-up question on that. we know from reporting that donald trump doesn't get briefed in person about russia, that it's all delivered in writing because it agitates him. makes him angry. we know from subsequent reporting that he doesn't read his pdb. do you think there was -- and this is a serious question. for a president that is not -- if you accept those accounts and the white house did not comment on either of those articles, do you think it was a shock to him to learn today that 13 russian nationals were deep inside our democracy, acting as american actors, smearing hillary clinton, sending people to her

rallies, sowing discord. do you think this was a shock to him or do you think that someone had to walk in and take him through all of the different times that the u.s. intelligence community and u.s. law enforcement has tried to state just this? >> gosh, nicolle. if this was a shock to him, that would be shocking. you would hope, you would expect that folks have been telling him this type of thing in one way or another, whether orally or in writing since he became the president of the united states. i can't go into detail and i know you can't either about the things that are in a pdb, but this is precisely the type of operation being run by a adversary, that the president should be keenly informed about. >> exactly. ken dilanian, i want you to jump in as part of the conversation. i know you've studied the indictment as closely as chuck has. and i want you to -- we have some time now. let's hone in on what some of

the most gob-smacking elements of it. to me it's the next that there were not one, not two, but three trump campaign officials who were in some sort of contact with the 13 indicted russian nationals. >> yeah, that's certainly one of them, nicolle. i was struck by the elements of the operation we didn't know about. we knew about the social media manipulation. but we didn't realize, i don't think, that russian agents were actually infiltrating the united states, using false identities, talking to americans, gathering u.s. intelligence on the political system in furtherance of this covert operation. we didn't realize they were setting up rallies both in person and on social media, both pro trump rallies and sort of dirty tricks kind of rallies, like muslims for hillary, and pro jill stein rallies. all in an effort to interfere in our democracy. we didn't know there was a budget of more than a million dollars a month in this covert operation.

so, look, one of my colleagues is circulating a tweet that donald trump tweeted back in july where he talked about negotiating with vladimir putin, a cyber security defense tact to protect elections from hacking. you know, people forget that. that was immediately repudiated by the white house. but this indictment is an absolute refutation of his world view on this for the last several months, where he said this was a hoax, vladimir putin insisted he didn't meddle and he was prepared to accept that. the idea that he would claim vindication from this is absurd on its face. and then the point that you raised, which is that we have a president of the united states who is silent in the face of clear evidence of an attack by an american adversary on our political system. they took advantage of our first amendment, of our social media, of our open system to manipulate americans and the question now is what is the u.s. government going to do about it, nicolle. >> ken thomas, do you have any indication from white house sources who sometimes on background are able to share details about a process that, in

many instances, is h.r. mcmaster, trying to bring him around? i know sometimes the cia director pompeo has to bring him around. sometimes those officials go out and make public comments so the president doesn't have to. do you have any indication from the white house has been at best hunkered down, at worst slamming doors in the faces of the reporters covering them since tuesday? do you have any sense there is a group that has stayed behind in washington in that building behind you to figure out how to respond to the 13 indictments? >> there's not a large party traveling with the president that we're aware of. a lot of his main advisors are staying back here in washington. we're also told that the president could receive and have a lot of meetings in florida this weekend. there's obviously the sensitivity about the shooting nearby in parkland. so the expectation is that, you

know, the white house is trying to digest this. the initial read from them is that this is good news, that it shows that this started back in 2014, well before he was a candidate and, you know, offers them a way to claim that it didn't affect the outcome of the election. on the other hand, you do have rod rosenstein who the president has been critical of, making a case in the public. so it makes it much more difficult for now the president to turn around and fire rosenstein if that's something he's been considering. >> matt miller, it also makes it more bizarre if they view this as good news, if they truly feel happy, if they truly feel vindicated that today bob mueller's special counsel investigation, that that team took evidence to a grand jury and those americans, just like all of us, looked at the evidence and decided, yes, there is enough evidence here to

indict these russians for these crimes. if they really think that's good news, why did the president go out and tweet, see, i told you, no collusion -- why didn't they come out -- if it's really good news we caught russians in the act, why not announce sanctions? why not say, never again? why not say, vladimir, donald trump, your buddy, you're dead to me, i'm coming for you. why not ever, ever confront vladimir putin for anything he does? >> because the president continues to act in this case like a defendant and not like the president of the united states who is responsible for leading a response to this hacking. it continues to act like someone whose actions are under question. in fact, that's why you see him make some of the mistakes you do that put him in further legal jeopardy. it was that world view back in last year that led him to take all these actions that have now brought him under scrutiny for obstruction of justice. i think it was obviously a mistake for them to view this indictment as any type of vindication. if we see further charges, today

was the first step in mueller constructing a legal architecture under which you could see charges against the president or i should say the president's aides. what we saw today was him sketching out a conspiracy to defraud the united states, the first participants in that conspiracy are the russians who were listed in this indictment. further participants in that conspiracy could be the russians who participated in hacking e-mails of the dnc and hacking john podesta's e-mails. the big question is do we see other american citizens who took actions in furtherance of that conspiracy either privately, either publicly? that's the big question that remains to be seen and there is nothing in this indictment today that should anyway give any signal that we won't see those actions coming from bob mueller down the road. >> kristen welker, let me give you the last word and then i know several of you are on the deadline and have to go. any sense from this white house that they're going to circle back with the press that they largely shut out for the vast majority of the weekend?

the country and parkland, florida endured an unspeakable tragedy, but this white house is more hunkered down than usual this week. any indications they would come back and fill you in on either more context about today's indictments? i know the chief of staff has some updates to the security clearances process, but any sense that they're about to throw open the windows, throw open the doors and bring you guys in and fill you in on their thinking? >> i don't get that sense that that will happen today, at least publicly, nicolle. certainly the conversations that we have will continue sort of behind the scenes and in their offices. i don't get the sense that they're going to call an impromptu press briefing. for example, and obviously, we have a lot of questions not only because of the indictments, but because of the whole controversy over security clearances. and as you point out, chief of staff john kelly. i just released five pages of changes, improvements that he is going to enact, try to crackdown on people who are serving with interim security clearances and to try to improve the process of those who have access to

classified information. in terms of what we can expect over the weekend, remember, we're tracking to see if president trump does, in fact, meet with family members, loved ones of those in parkland, florida, and then next week we have a holiday on monday. likely the first time we will see someone from the press would be on tuesday. there has been a lot of pressure, nicolle, for the chief of staff to come here to this podium behind me and to answer questions about all of this. it is possible that these 13 indictments will only ramp up that type of pressure. we'll have to see if that actually winds up happening, though, nicole. >> kristen, matt, thank you for speaking with us. when we come back we'll talk to a former ambassador to russia. plus new details about key members of the white house who have met with robert mueller this week. i don't think so. but here we are. i'm packing broiled chicken. he's playing cyclops robot or whatever. ♪

time to steal a little thunder. ♪ that's right, who's the fun one now? made with real cream. reddi-wip. instant greatification. kayak compares hundreds of travel and airline sites so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. cheers! kayak. search one and 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.

joining our conversation now, michael mcfaul, former u.s. ambassador to russia during the obama administration, now an msnbc russian affairs contributor. so, my question for you, i read this quickly. i didn't see any reference to the russian government or the russian intelligence agencies, but i wonder if it is apparent to you that -- if it was an operation of the russian government and of the russian intelligence agencies. >> it is to me, nicolle. the internet research agency is run by a close personal friend of vladimir putin. they would have never undertaken this operation, this audacious operation without the blessing of the kremlin. and nothing in russia happens without vladimir putin being involved. so, yes, the indictment was

careful, but from my point of view, looking at this, this was an operation orchestrated by vladimir putin. >> so, what does it look like in russia today to see the special counsel brought in to augment or to correct this administration's posture when it comes to getting to the bottom of russia's role in 2016? what does it say that the president's only response was to say, yea, i'm innocent of collusion? >> well, the first thing we should say is three cheers to the fbi and to special -- to robert mueller and to everybody that was involved in this and probably more than just the fbi. this was an incredible achievement, and that will get people's attention and that's a good thing. that's an instance of deterrence. but the president's tweet, i just have to say i was shocked, just literally shocked at how weak it was. we were attacked! our sovereignty was violated! spies came into our country and our commander in chief, all he

does is talk about himself and there's no collusion. that was not a presidential response. i hope he rethinks it and does something better tomorrow. >> let me give you my next question. here's the tweet you're talking about. the president tweeting this was the first communication from the white house after the 13 indictments of russian nationals. donald trump tweeting, russia started their anti-u.s. campaign in 2014, long before i announced that i would run for president. the results of the election were not impacted. the trump campaign did nothing wrong. no collusion. i'm guessing, ambassador, you feel like what's missing is this was an act of cyber war. we will respond. we choose our own president. and, by the way, we're going to re-up or start enforcing the sanctions that congress already passed. if that's not the appropriate response, tell me what is. what does it sound like to do nothing?

>> it's so exasperating, nicolle, i don't know what more to say. look, whether we were attacked in 2014 or 2018, he's the commander in chief. when we're attacked, we need to be defended. it really doesn't matter when it started. and frankly, i just cannot understand why it's so hard for president trump to say that. so many people would be delighted if he would just at least recognize the attack. we can talk about prescriptions later in terms of sanctions. if i were advising him, i would have him throw out several spies from the united states, russian spies, on tuesday. why wait till tuesday? do it tomorrow. show that we take this seriously and push back on the russians. for him to say nothing sends the very wrong signal. >> and that's from someone who would know. ambassador mcfaul, thank you for joining us. i know you're many times zones away but we're grateful to have you here today. >> always glad to be with you. >> thank you so much. i want to bring into the conversation betsy woodruff with

"the daily beast." i want to introduce our panel today. joining us on set, evan mcmillan former cia operative, former presidential candidate and the reverend al sharpton, most on msnbc. and elise jordan, former aide in the george w. bush and rand paul with us. betsy, you have reporting today about the president's lawyer underscoring just how happy donald trump is with this news. anything -- did he show any leg -- i don't really want to see his legs, but did he say anything about anything other than donald trump's personal legal exposure? >> in my conversation with john dowd, the president's personal outside counsel, he did not say anything particularly about that. one point that he made that i thought was important is that he underscored the fact of the mueller indictment which claimed this really had an impact on the united states, that this was a concerted effort on the part of the russian government to go after our country. one thing that dowd told me was, quote, they, meaning mueller,

got these blanks or bleeps who tried to hurt the country, conceding that there was organized malicious intent on the part of the kremlin to come after the united states. that said, of course, you know, the implication here. and perhaps what folks close to the president and folks in the white house have said explicitly is that because the president himself or folks in the white house aren't named in this indictment and because the indictment doesn't explicitly affirmatively demonstrate that there were americans who worked knowingly with the kremlin, that that means that never happened, that's not how logic works, right. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. that said, of course, one of the things that dowd made really clear to me when we chatted is that the news today and the fact that the president or none of his associates are named or even implied in this indictment is something that they see as cause for celebration. >> ken dilanian, are you still with us?

do we still have ken or chuck? >> i'm here. >> ken, let me get you just to reset us a little bit. we're focusing in like a laser, appropriately so on these 13 indictments. if you pull back just a little bit, there was also news today that paul manafort's partner mr. gates may not be cooperating with the special counsel investigation. it was described to me with nbc news confirming yesterday that steve bannon, the president's former top strategist spending 20 hours with bob mueller, that bob mueller isn't just getting closer and closer and closer to the president, but that he must want something if he's still willing to do a deal. if he's still willing to let someone flip and say for lengthens -- leniency in sentencing or to drop some of the charges, i will take your cooperation. what kinds of things, what kinds of other people might bob mueller be closing in on that those two developments would coincide with these indictments?

>> right, and i should point out nbc news has not confirmed that rick gates is close to cutting a deal, but he certainly has hired a lawyer with a long history of negotiating these kinds of deals with the justice department. the first thing gates could do is help with the manafort prosecution because they were long-time partners and associates. but also rick gates remained with the trump organization long after paul manafort left. he was raising money for the inaugural. he was around meeting with people at the white house. so he may know things that even paul manafort doesn't know. he may know some things about potential collusion, he may know some things about potential obstruction of justice. you know, in general, you're right. even leaving this indictment aside, we also reported today that mark corallo met yesterday with the special counsel's office. mark reportedly some things to say about hope hicks and obstruction of justice. there is a very serious inquiry building momentum around donald trump, quite apart from this question of whether they find evidence that anyone in the trump campaign colluded with this effort that was laid out in today's indictment. he's got the obstruction inquiry, you've got all this stuff happening.

there is in no sense is donald trump out of legal danger. >> chuck rosenberg, let me ask you, if we err in focusing so much on the obstruction of justice inquiry because there is so much -- we lost chuck. do we err in talking about the obstruction of justice inquiry, are there more in washington, lawyers in washington we may come in contact with? is it a mistake to assume that the collusion investigation isn't just as intense and just as far along? >> it is human nature. i heard you make this point earlier today, nicolle. absolutely right, as you said, the obstruction case involves a lot of people. we know their identities, we know who their lawyers are. we can stake out the mueller office and see if they're coming in and talking. we talk to these people, it's a

discrete group of people. the collusion case is sprawling. we have no idea. nobody before today heard of richard pinedo, charged with identity fraud allegedly with helping the russians in this operation. we have no idea. there are some hints in that indictment that mueller may have had other cooperation with -- among the coconspirators in this russian collusion conspiracy. so you're absolutely right. there is a huge iceberg below the surface of the sea here with this collusion case, and we just don't know what we don't know. but i was really interested to hear what you got out of former cia director john brennan. he pretty clearly said there, i think we'll see evidence that trump campaign officials knowingly colluded, tried to walk it back a little bit but -- >> i didn't miss it. i don't miss anything these days. i'm going to get a law degree at the end of this. betsy, i want to get you in for the last word, and i want to put one more question to you. i read this indictment and it was all about -- a lot about

social media. it was about the high-tech campaign to hurt hillary clinton which had the effect of helping donald trump. i wonder if there is any reporting about cambridge analytica which jared kushner had a part in. do we know the activities cambridge analytica was engaged in and anything in the indictment in terms of their mission? >> this particular indictment doesn't refer to that. it also doesn't refer to any russian efforts that may have existed to micro target voters. the indictment starts to paint a picture of a russian interference effort that worked slightly differently than some folks have theorized. that said, one thing in here that's vital to remember as we're talking about the impact and the way that these russian efforts affected american citizens is that some of my colleagues and i broke -- a story we broke several months ago, which is an account that's mentioned in this indictment. and now defunct twitter account called at 10 gop which was able to get extraordinary reach during the election. in fact, one of these russian puppet accounts actually got boosted by donald trump, jr., and kellyanne conway in the week leading up to the election.

and those two people boosted russian-backed messages making ridiculous claims that there was voter fraud that was under way at the time. so it is important to remember that these russian efforts will probably much more successful than they imagine they might have been in 2014, and had reached sort of brought in folks who were really close to trump's inner circle. there is no evidence that conway or trump junior knew the source of the messages they were amplifying, but they did amplify those messages and those messages were initially pushed out by folks connected to the kremlin. >> and we know that the president fell for what they were pushing as well because he wanted to investigate the very voter fraud that you talk about being circulated by that russian troll account. ken dilanian and betsy woodruff, you make us much smarter. thank you for spending time with us. we're going to take another break. but when we come back a look at how today's news has trump eating some of his words.

for all the people who sneeze around dust. there's flonase sensimist allergy relief. it relieves all your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. it's more complete allergy relief. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. and 6 is greater than 1. flonase sensimist. gathered here are the world's finest insurance experts. rodney -- mastermind of discounts like safe driver, paperless. the list goes on. how about a discount for long lists? gold. mara, you save our customers hundreds for switching almost effortlessly. it's a gift. and jamie. -present. -together we are unstoppable.

so, what are we gonna do? ♪ insurance. that's kind of what we do here. which means everyone has access to our real reviews that we actually verify. and we can also verify that what goes down, [ splash, toilet flush ] doesn't always come back up. find a great plumber at angie's list. join today for free. it's abor it isn't. ence in 30,000 precision parts. it's inspected by mercedes-benz factory-trained technicians. or it isn't. it's backed by an unlimited mileage warranty, or it isn't. for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned, or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event. now through february 28th. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer.

you know, this russia thing with trump and russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the democrats for having lost an election. >> they needed an excuse, so they said russia, and then they said, wait a minute, wait a minute. russia and trump. honestly, it's the thing they did best. they did a rotten job of running, but to convince people about this hoax -- >> the story where they talk about collusion and there was none, it was a hoax. >> russia was an excuse used by the democrats when they lost the election. >> they lost it by a lot. they didn't know what to say, so they made up the whole russia hoax. >> there has been no collusion between the trump campaign and russians. >> it's a democrat hoax that was brought up as an excuse for losing an election that frankly the democrats should have won --

>> that hoax has turned out to be anything but. one trump aide describing what mueller did today by indicting 11 russian nationals as effectively, ending the trump narrative that the russia investigation is a hoax. the panel still here and joining our panel is eugene robinson, washington post columnist. gene, let's start with you, your take on everything. >> well, i think this is huge. i mean, this is a huge day. that whole role of president trump saying it's a hoax, democrats made it up, an excuse. that was always complete bunk, and it is proved to be complete bunk because now we have detailed, compelling evidence of a campaign organized at highest levels of the russian government to influence the election in really sort of ways that should enrage us all. if you look at the indictment and the things they were doing with social media, the kinds of wedges and divisions they were trying to drive into the american electorate.

deliberately trying to suppress the minority vote, for example. they were trying to convince people that hillary clinton was somehow a supporter of sharia law. they knew some hot buttons to push and they were pushing them over and over and over again. and, look, it's not conceivable that this had absolutely no effect. now, i know that upsets the president and he doesn't like to hear that. but it is the truth, and we as a nation have to respond in some way to this. i just as an american am outraged at what i read in this indictment. >> elise, we didn't hear any outrage from the president. >> and we aren't going to. reading this indictment today was shocked by the breadth, the scope, the amount of money, the resources, and by the political savvy, quite frankly. it was a much more sophisticated effort than i had ever imagined that russians would be capable

of on american soil. and you look at it throughout and the, quote, unwitting americans who cooperated, you know, the indictment cites americans who went on television to promote the message, who received payment from these russians. it cites a texas-based operative who gave advice on targeting purple states and giving micro targeting advice. this story is not going away and there are so many layers to every single fact within that the trump administration and donald trump himself is going to have to deal with. >> rob, you are always the resident expert on trump and trumpism. and one mistake many of us made during the campaign was waiting for a pivot. i feel like the russia analogy is the mistake people make now as waiting for the outrage. he'll never be outraged about russian meddling. >> no, he will not be. and if there was ever an outside chance that he was going to be outraged, he would have done it

today because if he really felt he was vindicated, you know, we've been dealing with trump a long time in this town. if he really felt he was vindicated, he would not have walked past the press and got on that helicopter. he would have been doing the victory lap around marine one and high fiving his way to mar-a-lago. that is all him trying to put up a front. he knows this is not vindication. let's look at what we do know, nicolle. they absolutely were trying to tilt the election against hillary clinton. why did they think he was a better choice? that does not help him. why do they think he would serve their interests? that's the same reason he's not calling for sanctions. that's why he's not outraged. that's why he's not angry. can you imagine an american president that is not angry that you interfered with an american election? i mean, there's no way you can rationalize that. he knows that these footsteps are getting closer. if he didn't, he would have

stopped and he'd still be on the lawn talking to the press. >> i agree with you. evan, it did seem like vindication to the intelligence community, which he's been smearing since before he became president. >> absolutely. this is an incredible collection of facts in this indictment and i would recommend that all americans read it. this is a new day and a new age in which our foreign adversaries are attacking our democracy, exploiting the openness of our society which we would like to keep and maintain. and we've all got to get a lot smarter. but it's also a wake up call for anybody who may be involved in this conspiracy, including the president. there is so much detail here. the detail for someone who used to work in this space is incredible, and it -- >> what does that tell you about mueller? >> it tells me that mueller and those contributing to this investigation have incredible collection capacity on this front, on this investigation. and if you're somebody who may

have been involved, you're looking at this and you're saying, my goodness, i'm up against a real challenge here. i'm vulnerable. >> these weren't digital novices. they were trying to scrub their digital footprint and they still got it. >> right. >> explain what you're talking about. there is an e-mail in the indictment that says the fbi is on to us. >> to a family member outside of russia that is included in the indictment because they got it all at the end. they were not successful in being able to scrub their footprints completely. so if there are potential conspirators, you'd be pretty nervous about that, about what bob mueller's team has access to. >> and they're well financed. let's remember now, you're talking about a million, million-two a month. anybody who looked at this would have to say this is the russian government. these are no quacks that could come up with that kind of money. obviously they were operating for putin, they were being financed there and the president is not outraged by that?

i mean, there's no way -- who else would have financed this or could have financed this? >> eugene? >> you know, the other thing this shows us, nicolle, this shows us fake news in action, and how, how dangerous and corrosive it can be. a hostile foreign power can use fake news to influence an election, you know, that junk that you get on social media isn't just random junk. it can be very specifically aimed at a political objective, aimed that way by a foreign government. this is an incredible situation, and i don't see how you don't look at this as an emergency. i mean, it's something that this country really has to confront because it happened in 2016. there is no reason it won't happen again in 2018 and 2020 unless we get our arms around

this and figure a way we can kind of tell truth from politically motivated falsehood on the internet. >> but, eugene, where does that happen? because last time i looked, the house intel committee, which would normally have a role in getting outraged and getting to the bottom of this, they were busy ramming through over the grave concerns of the director of the fbi, a document with the sole purpose of smearing the very secret fisa court system and process. so i share your outrage, but i guess i'm a little more resigned. who fixes this? if the president is not outraged, if the house intel committee is basically operating as a propaganda arm for the president and his personal legal escapades, who does that work? >> look, at the level of the federal government, i have no idea who does that work right now because the people who should be doing it are not doing it. but there is also, i think, a role here. there are lessons here and a

role here for the people who run social media companies.. now, you know, there has to be a way consistent with our principles of free speech to monitor and to indicate where monitor and to indicate where information is coming from, and maybe that means doing more research on where it is exactly coming from. it's a difficult problem and very difficult to solve consistent with the first amendment. but we have to look this in the face because that's the world we live in right now. >> it is indeed. no one's going anywhere. we're going to sneak in a break, but we will be right back. experience the 2018 lexus nx

and the nx hybrid with a class beating 31 mpg combined estimate. lease the 2018 nx 300 for $339 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. it's time for the 'ultimate sleep number event' on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort your sleep number setting. and snoring? does your bed do that? right now during the ultimate sleep number

event, save 50% on the ultimate limited edition bed with adjustable comfort on both sides. plus 24-month financing. ends monday. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you. wemost familiar companies,'s but we make more than our name suggests. we're an organic tea company. a premium juice company. a coconut water company. we've got drinks for long days. for birthdays. for turning over new leaves. and we make them for every moment in every corner of the country. we are the coca-cola company, and we're proud to offer so much more.

we have been talking all hour about the what 13 indictments from special counsel bob mueller for their meddling iro in our presidential election. we haven't talked about the why. what the trump mcdougal story reveals about the steele dossier. while some of the seedier allegations have not been verified, the central thesis of the dossier seems increasingly likely. the real worry isn't whether the president's friends have power over the president. it's whether additional alleged affairs and cover ups are known to foreign governments like russia. if jared kushner's mountains of debt our concerning to get permanent security alarmances,

then trump's history is a five alarm fire. >> these affairs certainly do make one vulnerable to blackmail. that's true. however, someone like donald trump i'll say candidly is less vulnerable to allegations of affairs because everyone expects that to be the case. >> why did michael cohen give an adult film actress $30 million? >> because it's during the campaign. it's more about his financial dealings during the campaign, more about his activities overseas which may have involved women, that's true. there's more information reporters are working on with regard to those details that have not yet come out but will come out. these are the things that truly get him in trouble i think and leave him more vulnerable to

blackmail. >> the white house was engulfed in a nine. day scandal about the fact that rob porter, the staff secretary had remained on staff. it's raised a lot of questions about jared kushner who's operating under an interim security clearance which may or may not mean he's been told he won't get one either. he's updated his own background forms so many times maybe they have to go out to the field every time. i think that's how it traditionally works. what is your sense on the affairs for sort of the sordid aspects of them, but the actions, having his personal lawyer pay $130,000 to a porn star before the election, trying to cleanup some of these messes that were as you said not surprising in terms of his character and moerality but perhaps inconvenient as an american president? >> i think you what was remember that the mentality they had were they were not expecting to win. and when they started becoming

close to victory i think they just started doing all kinds of scattered things, covering up things that could interfere with those results. >> the keystone cops. >> right, the keystone cops because they were like preparing to build this brand, save with the help probably of some russians, i guess that they stole the elections from us. don't forget they were not saying voter suppression but voter fraud. they would have it all lay out, his brand would be higher and he would market it in his businesses. then all of a sudden he could wip. so you've got trying to cover up and trying to patch up things that could embarrass or could humiliate you. and i think that's what we're looking at here. i think evan's right that really the blackmail part isn't that.

i don't think donald trump, anyone that even met him in passing thinks he would care about an affair coming out. i think it's going to be in his dealings, and i think it's going to be in whether or not he even tacitly supported russian interference. i don't think it has to do with any torrid affair. >> he still has legal vulnerability on the collusion front and obstruction front? >> i think so certainly. and what i found most telling about donald trump in one of his very first meetings with secretary of state rex tillerson he brought up getting rid of the foreign corrupt practices act, which is very random thing to care about especially considering donald trump does not really have that much of an inclination to try to drive policy, but to bring it up to rex tillerson who had to explain this is actually beneficial for american companies. that just makes me wonder all

the more what really is in his past with the business dealings. >> it started with the white house engulfed in scandal over a domestic abuser in their midst, the president's uneven response to a shooting, a horrific school shooting, a deadly one, and the indictments of russians, 13 who have indeed meddled in our election. >> for the presidency of the united states, a terrible week. for the nation, a sort of dizzying and almost disorienting week. you know, what's monday going to be like? on any of these fronts? are we going to have confidence that the people serving in the white house are properly cleared for the secret information that they have or are we going to do anything about the terrible gun problem we have? or are we just going to wait for the next shooting? are we going to respond to this -- to this aggression from

russia? and we don't know the answer to any of those. >> we don't, but we're so happy to have you and have you take a stab at it. my thanks to you gene robinson, evan mcmullen and reverend al sharpton, and i'm micole wallace and see you back here monday for deadline white house at 4:00 p.m. conspiracy. let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm chris matthews. in washington we begin tonight with bombshell news that special counsel robert mueller's probe of russian interference. putting in black and white something president trump has denied for more than a year, that a group of russians interfered in the 2016 election to help his campaign and hurt hillary clinton's. it came in a federal grand jury indiekt of 13 russians and three russian companies. the defendant's operati