>> thank you, we'll see you back here tomorrow as well. we begin with breaking news this afternoon. nbc news has confirmed now that democrats on the house intelligence committee have released a declassified version of their russia memo. it's their response to the republican memo released earlier this month that questioned fbi surveillance practices. we're joined now by nbc white house correspondent jeff bennett and nbc's mike mamoly. >> the white house has sent both to the chairman and to the top democrat on the house intelligence committee a declassified version of the memo that democrats wrote in response to the memo that the republicans had written that was released three weeks ago yesterday. this is important because the devin nunes memo this has to all do with the carter page a former trump foreign policy adviser, the fisa warrant application that was submitted and approved in order to surveil on him. republicans claimed in their memo that there were not enough

evidence presented to the fisa court about the political sources and the possible political motivations behind. democrats tried to have released at the same time rebutting some of the key claims, that did not happen. the white house has now after a period of review with the democrats reviewed some of the information that was included in their response, declassified it and made some redactions to it. what we haven't seen is the actual memo itself. that is up to both chairman devin nunes who's actually speaking right now at a conservative gathering just outside washington, and adam schiff, the top democrat who was the lead author of this memo. it's up to either one of them to release that publicly. we'll be interested in reading more about what the response to the republican memo says. what we understand that it does is provides more context about that application. it says that there were in fact information presented to the fisa judge about potential political sources for information that was included in their application. and also that there was plenty

of evidence even beyond information contained in a so-called dossier that would have led to the warrant being issued in the first place. >> okay, mike, thank you. i want to turn to jeff bennett for us as well who was at the white house for us this afternoon. jeff, what are you hearing from there? >> reporter: well, mike framed it perfectly. i would not only add this, remember, president trump had no issue declassifying the republican nunes memo without redactions. there's some reporting to suggest that he made that decision without even seeing the memo, without even first seeing the memo despite the grave concerns exprezssed by top officials at the justice department. but the democratic memo as mike points out had to undergo some revisions, had to undergo some vetting and back to the committee before it was made public. so, look, the president believed that the gop nunes memo served as proof of this long-running fbi bias against him that would in some way undermine the overall russia investigation

even though democrats have said time and time again that the gop memo is partisan spin. so at this point we have to see the memo. we could get it perhaps as early as today, more likely next week when congress returns back into session. so without having seen the democratic memo, there's only so much we can say. but clearly at this point the politics of this are really paramount, aaron. >> you make a good point there, jeff. we know that the white house had said that they had released the gop memo in an effort to be transparent. and then there was the complaint from chuck schumer that the democrat memo was delayed and so it sort of was implied that this effort towards transparency was not wholehearted. do you anticipate that we might hear something from a chuck schumer type who would have some issues with whatever the white house may have approved? >> perhaps. and i think mike should weigh in on this as well. he spends more time on the hill than i do, but look, democrats have made the point that one of the reasons why republicans

wanted to get out there first, aaron, was so they could frame the debate. and they've had perhaps, what, weeks? i've lost count. but they've had weeks to frame the debate. looking at the time in between the gop nunes memo came out and then the needing classification of this white house memo -- rather the schiff memo from the white house. so, yes, republicans if they wanted to get a running start in framing the debate and shaping the narrative, they certainly have done that. >> and, mike, what are you hearing from democrats and from democrats on the committee? >> well, what they've been saying all along is they wanted neither memo to become public whachlt they see is devin nunes has been undergoing for some months now an effort to really politicize this whole information -- this whole investigation. they want to undercut the mueller investigation by arguing that both the fbi and the obama administration have been improperly using law enforcement community to spy on key trump officials. and so that's their point of view here. they didn't want either one of these memos to become public. but once the committee did vote on a party line to release the

nunes memo, democrats began drafting their own response. they viewed it, saw it was mischaracterizing the information presented to the fisa judge. they wanted to be able to include fuller context to balance it out. we should also point out the fbi didn't want this information. this is some of the most sensitive information that the government has, these fisa judges this is the secret surveillance system that allows the government to surveil both american citizens and foreign agents. and so this is information that has never been public before. it was an unprecedented step by the committee to even put the nunes memo out in the first place. and democrats now are trying to at least balance out the equation by presenting what they see the fuller picture here. >> so what do you think, mike, would be the potential impact here as we think about both memos being out there, we get into next week and we get congress back in session as well, what do you think the real impact becomes of now having both of these documents out for everyone to see? >> well, don't forget president trump claimed that the nunes memo was complete validation for

him, that he said this completely showed that there was a political effort here to undermine his campaign alleging part of what he called the witch hunt of this whole russia investigation. what democrats want to be able to do is say there was information well beyond what was included in the christopher steele dossier, that's the former british intelligence agent that republicans say included a lot of information that was not vetted. democrats say it of course was. they want to be able to present the full information. and it's interesting here because when you put it in context, the nunes memo was released at a time when we were still a long way away from knowing where the mueller investigation was headed. we've now seen just this week again and clear example of just how far he's going both last week with the indictments of russian officials as part of this effort to directly interfere with our election. and then now with the cooperation of gates which will help the investigation in terms of manafort and some of the other trump campaign officials we're really seeing now the

mueller investigation standing on its own. and the republican talking points about this whole being a political witch hunt are really being undermined in realtime. >> all right. nbc's jeff bennett and mike, we appreciate you both. we're of course going to stay on top of this. if anymore developments happen in the next hour or so, we will bring that to our viewers here. also today major developments in the russia investigation as the special prosecutor continues to put the squeeze on president trump's former campaign manager. paul manafort facing new criminal charges including additional counts of tax and bank fraud, conspiracy and money laundering. and rick gates, manafort's wingman in business and on trump's campaign pleading guilty to conspiracy and lying to investigators. prosecutors dismissed some other criminal charges against gates in exchange for his cooperation in the russia investigation. gates is the third ex-trump associate to plead guilty. former national security adviser michael flynn and former campaign aide george papadopoulos both pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about

their russia contacts. let's bring in our panel now frank, former assistant director for counterintelligence at the fbi, jill wine banks former assistant water gate special prosecutor and kimberly atkins, chief washington reporter for the "boston herald." i want to start with paul manafort's statement after gates pleaded guilty. you see here on the screen "i continue to maintain my innocence, i had hoped and expected my business colleague would have had the strength to continue the battle to prove our innocence. for reasons yet to surface he chose to do otherwise. this does not alter my commitment to defend myself against the untrue piled up charges contained in the indictments against me." so, frank, what is mueller trying to do here with the gates deal and these new charges against manafort? >> well, he's taking a page right out of the playbook for organized crime cases. you need to flip people and get to your target and get people informing on the person above them and keep going.

that's what he's done with gates. but it's fascinating to watch how he's pressuring manafort. think about this, aaron, if you're facing taking your last breath in federal prison if you don't cooperate, what is it that's motivating you to not cooperate? there's only three options here. one is you're certain of your innocence, which manafort's asserting. but i've got to tell you in the charging documents we've read, these are solid paper cases, multi-million dollars in money laundering around the world, not paying taxes on any of it, this isn't about whether you used your turn signal properly or not. this is a great case. so you're either thinking you're certain you're innocent, number two, you're thinking you're going to get a pardon from the president and you don't need to worry. that's also an issue because we know that state's attorneys general could be taking up these cases and trump couldn't pardon those state cases. and then third, you're certain that if you cooperate the thugs from ukraine and russia that you've been entangled with are going to kill you.

that's a real concern here. there's something keeping manafort from doing the logical, and it's not just about protecting trump. >> jill, we know gates admitted to filing false letters to the justice department in '16 and '17 about lobbying efforts with ukraine. how significant is the timeline of events laid out in these new indictments? >> well, the new indictments go for a longer period of time. it takes us into much more recent times, so that is important. and frank is completely correct on what he said. it's impossible for me to think how any lawyer is going to defend manafort. because the paper case was really strong. it's an easy case. now you have a live witness in addition, which really makes a big difference. and i guess i would worry about the russians and how they might react to his cooperating. it also i would link to why was the dutch lawyer plead guilty?

he's the son-in-law of a russian oligarch. he could have fled the country and lived for the rest of his life in russia. he supposedly is not cooperating. but i wonder maybe he is secretly cooperating. because why else would he possibly plead guilty? he has the money to defend himself. it makes no sense. so there's something strange going on there. with gates you also have the issue of his lawyers having withdrawn because of ir reck differences, i'm wondering if they knew he was lying while he was cooperating? because that's what he pled guilty to just now. he was lying during the time when he should have been telling everything to the prosecutor because he would have not been able to be charged with those things unless they could prove they had evidence before he

cooperated. >> and, frank, since you and jill both bring it up, this point about having some -- manafort possibly having some concern about how the russians might come after him, if he and gates were working hand in hand on so many elements of this alleged conspiracy and they were working hand in hand on the trump campaign at some point in time, why might manafort have that concern but gates is working with the prosecutor not having the same concern it might seem? >> from what we've seen publicly and the charging documents and what we know about manafort's history, he goes farther back with the ukrainians and the russian-backed ukrainians than gates does. so there's far more room for entanglement, more history here. there's some reporting about indebtedness to the russians. russians taking on his debt. all of this needs to be sorted out, but clearly i believe manafort is more entangled with russian and ewe caroliukrainian

than gates is. >> how likely is it we'll see a major new effort to push back against mueller? or do they just sort of let this run its course? >> well, officially they don't respond. you hear white house counsel ty cobb really being quiet about each development that comes out of this. but one way that you do see the white house response indirectly is through the president through his twitter feed usually when he goes on twitter rants against a number of different topics, it's usually on a day -- it's often on a day when indictments come down when there's new news coming out of this investigation, which shows that it is bothering him and getting to him. but officially i think it's a smart thing for his attorneys to try to keep responses as tight as possible. >> i'm going to ask you guys to hang tight with me here. we had just gotten our hands on the house intelligence the

democrats memo from the house intelligence committee that was just released. i want to go back to mike. as i'm looking at this document i'm holding here there are a lot of redactions here. you've had a chance to go through it, what are you finding? >> just had a chance to go through it. a lot of footnotes, a lot of evidence being cited by the democrats in their response to the nunes memo. the key point is not surprising with the schiff memo i should say starts by pointing out is that the nunes memo itself is part of an effort to undermine the department of justice, the fbi and the mueller investigation that this is an effort on the part of republicans to sort of muddy the political waters as it were. what the memo also states is that the fbi in seeking a surveillance warrant on carter page, a former trump foreign policy adviser, they met the full evidentiary standard and that dossier part of a political

operation, part of a political research document funded by the clinton campaign was not a critical part, was only part of the information presented to the fisa court and that the fisa warrant could have been issued even without it. which was the core claim that the nunes memo had made. a couple points that the schiff memo says, i want to read on screen here, it says that the doj met the rigor, transparency and evidentiary by demonstrating contemporaneous evidence of russia's election interference, concerning russian links and outreach to trump campaign officials and page's history with russian intelligence. there's also a redacted portion here in their key bullet points but it refers to page's suspicious activities in 2016 including a trip to moscow. what's interesting about it is the house intelligence committee interviewed carter page in the course of their investigation, which is now going on for nearly a year and carter page told the committee himself about multiple trips that he took to moscow, not just in 2016 in the summer

but also after the election and also his past contacts with key russian officials. so the committee itself was well aware of elements of carter page's history that would have certainly raised concerns at the justice department, which would have been probable cause as the schiff memo argues here for issues a fisa warrant on him. so we'll continue to read this, but basically it's not surprising to the point the democrats are making here. the bottom line being that there was sufficient evidence beyond this famous dossier now that republicans have long sought to discredit here to attain this warrant on carter page. and we'll get back to you as we continue to dig through this. >> all right, mike, thank you for that. i want to turn back to frank, jill and kimberly. you've been listening to what mike said here that he's been able to unpack on this memo. jill, what are your thoughts? reaction to what we've heard so far. >> well, my thoughts are, one, that the memo to begin with, the nunes memo, was cherry picked and was a big nothing-burger.

it did not accomplish what was supposed to be accomplished. it did not clear trump. it did not show that there was no evidence of the political nature of the steele dossier to the extent that it was even a part of the basis for the fisa warrant. that dossier was identified in a footnote in the warrant as being from a political source. so the cherry pick nature and the falsity of nunes memo really made that a big nothing. i also want to go back to a question you asked frank, which was why maybe manafort would be more afraid of the russians than gates. and i'm not suggesting that gates shouldn't be a little bit afraid, but his role was not so directly with the ukrainians and the russians, which was manafort's role. he was sort of the doer back here. he would get instructions by e-mail or otherwise from manafort to falsify documents,

et cetera. he even had to involve his own family -- manafort involved his own family in lying for him. so a lot of this may be his direct knowledge comes from manafort. and this is pressure on manafort by getting the flip from gates. now manafort may have to know that he's going to go away for what could be the rest of his life given how many charges there are against him. >> and, frank, it does seem as though the democrats' memo tries to say that the fbi, the fisa courts, these folks were operating the way they should, everything on the up and up to the contrary they implied the nunes memo said. what's your read on what we've heard so far? >> so look, i'm pleased that it was released. and it's sounding so far like it is what we thought it would be, which is a refutation of the nunes memo, which as jill said, and jill was overly kind quite frankly. i'm going to say the nunes memo was a distortion of the facts at best, an outright distortion. so if you've been through the

fisa court process, and i've appeared before fisa court over 20 times in my career, signed off on hundreds of fisa court requests, you know the process. it's loaded with attorney review at doj, at fbi, local field office. it doesn't get through the system without being proper and containing probable cause. so it sounds like we have a refutation of the nunes memo. now the public gets to read this and decide what they will. >> all right. i wanted you guys to listen to something. i think we were just able to turn around some sound here. devin nunes at the cpac convention just outside d.c. commenting on this new memo release. listen. >> we actually wanted this out, so this has been held up for over two weeks. the fbi and doj had right away had told the democrats what was wrong with their memo, or their response to our memo. and they waited for two weeks before they actually did the redactions that were necessary to get this out. we wanted it out.

we wanted it out because we think it is clear evidence that the democrats are not only trying to cover this up, but they're also colluding with parts of the government to help cover this up. and i think as you read it, you will see personal attacks on myself, personal attacks on chairman gowdy with a lot of really interesting things that sound really bad, like a lot that has been happening with this russia investigation over the course of the last year, but you're not going to see is anything that actually rejects what was in our memo. >> i want to bring in ned price now, msnbc national security analyst, former special assistant to president obama and former national security council spokesman. ned, just your reaction to what we've heard so far and what we just heard from devin nunes? >> well, we're still making our way through the schiff memo, but i think it is exactly what we

expected it to be. and that is a point by point refutation of the nunes memo. it's fot as though the nunes memo needed a refutation because the best rebuttal to the nunes memo was in fact the nunes memo. but this lays out in about 10 or 11 very clear, concise pages exactly where the nunes memo erred. in my reading of this the most important takeaway here is the fact that the democrats contend the steele dossier was not in any way used to as a predicate for the july 2016 launch of the investigation into the trump campaign. it was in fact the information that george papadopoulos provided to the australian ambassador in london, but it's not until seven weeks later that the fbi actually obtained the steele memo. so any notion that the steele dossier including its salacious allegations was at all the predicate for what has turned into the special counsel

investigation has been blown out of the water. >> for anybody joining us i want to reiterate we are talking now about the democrats response, the democrats memo from the house intelligence committee. again, we've been looking through it, as i look at it here hold it up here you can tell there are a lot of redactions, a lot of places where information has been taken out by the white house. so let's go back to mike digging through this a little more for us this afternoon. mike, what more can you add? >> well, you'll remember there was this line at the end of the nunes memo when it was released three weeks ago that democrats were surprised to see which was the point made in nunes own memo that the investigation into trump's campaign and potential russian involvement contact with campaign officials had been well underway before the carter page surveillance was launched. what this schiff memo specifies was that that investigation was launched by the fbi on july 31st of 2016. i don't know that we've had a specific date on that investigation being launched.

the page application before the fisa court was not made until october. the other points that schiff's memo makes is that the doj subsided multiple sources in seeking this fisa warrant on carter page. and that it made only, quote, narrow use of information from the steele dossier. republicans have really tried to argue that the steele dossier was a primary source of launching the entire russia investigation. what schiff's memo was saying it was only narrowly used in one fisa application here on carter page. the other point that's made, which is something that we want to i think continue to read more on as we go through this memo is that the fbi's interest in seeking this fisa application on carter page sprang from what george papadopoulos was able to tell them as they began speaking with him, which is that russian officials really began to express an interest in members of trump's foreign policy team developing contacts with them as perhaps a way into understanding

more about the trump campaign, gaining influence in trump's campaign. that's a very important point here. because what the schiff memo is pointing out here is that this is more than just an isolated seeking of a warrant on somebody close to the foreign policy adviser to the trump campaign but able to see here a real pattern on the part of russians to target individual members of his foreign policy team. the other point which is interesting we have had some indications that there were -- that the initial fisa warrant application and the three renewals we knew occurred after the fact were approved by republican appointed judges. what this memo states specifically is that just that fact, this confirms what we had been led to believe which is that the judges who approved both the initial fisa warrant on carter page and the renewals of those were appointed by republican presidents, two appointed by george w. bush and one by president reagan. the last point which i've been

able to catch up here a little bit more on is what the schiff memo outlines is the fisa warrant here on carter page was not an attempt to spy on the trump campaign itself but that they were specifically interested in carter page and learning more about the contacts that he would have had with russian officials. and what's significant as i pointed out what i spoke to just a few moments ago, carter page told the intelligence committee himself that during the time in which the fisa court would have been -- while this warrant would have been on him, he traveled to russia and admitted to the committee he was meeting with key russian officials. so there certainly would have been evidence to both initially seek this application but also to renew it based on what carter page himself told the committee. >> mike, i don't know if you were able to hear the sound we ran a second ago from devin nunes. i wanted to get your thoughts about what he said essentially saying he wanted the democrats memo put out there and that he expected it would counter what his memo said and that it would be, you know, an option, a way for the public to see that the

memo is accurate and truthful, the democrats the opposite. >> yeah. i think the interesting point here is that democrats have said repeatedly they didn't want either one of these memos to be released. when the committee launched the nunes memo, democrats fought that party line. and republicans ultimately did sign onto release the schiff memo. they had a three-week head start here on framing the narrative democrats are only now seeking to address. >> all right, mike, thank you for that. we're going to take a quick break here. we've been covering the breaking news release of the house intelligence committee democrats response to the house nunes. ( ♪ ) ♪ i feel like fire ( ♪ )

the 2018 cadillac xt5. ♪ worship me beauty, greater than the sum of its parts. get this low-mileage lease on this cadillac xt5 from around $329 per month. visit your local cadillac dealer. ( ♪ ) ♪ worship me when you've got no plans but with your comfy pants, grab a marie callender's roasted turkey & stuffing. with mashed potatoes and made from scratch gravy. spoiler alert, things are about to get good. because me time calls for marie callender's. like you do sometimes, grandpa? and puffed... things are about to get good. well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor. she said... symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function.

symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol. medicines like formoterol increase the risk of death from asthma problems. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. you should tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! get symbicort free for up to one year. visit saveonsymbicort.com today to learn more. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. when this bell rings... ...it starts a chain reaction... ...that's heard throughout the connected business world. at&t network security helps protect business,

from the largest financial markets to the smallest transactions, by sensing cyber-attacks in near real time and automatically deploying countermeasures. keeping the world of business connected and protected. that's the power of and.

breaking news this afternoon here at msnbc. democrats in the house intelligence committee have released their memo on the fisa process. we want to go back to msnbc's jeff bennett at the white house. jeff, we knew the white house had reviewed and we know redacted some of the information in this memo. and now they're releasing a statement about the democrats having released this memo to the rest of us, right? >> reporter: that's right, aaron. we have a statement from white house press secretary sarah sanders, who by the way is in south korea right now for the closing ceremony of the olympic games. this is a statement attributed

to her, it's fairly lengthy but i'll read it, "while democrats memorandum attempts to undercut the president politically, the president supported its release in the interest of transparency. nevertheless this politically driven document fails to answer serious concerns raised by the majority's memorandum about the use of partisan opposition research from one candidate loaded with uncorroborated allegations as a basis to ask a court to approve surveillance of a former associate of another candidate at the height of a presidential campaign." the statement continues," the fisa judge never informed hillary clinton and dnc funded the dossier for the basis for the department of justice fisa application. in addition, the minority's memo fails to even address the fact that the deputy fbi director told the committee that had it not been for the dossier, no surveillance order would have been sought. as the president has long stated, neither he nor his

campaign ever colluded with a foreign power during the 2016 election. and nothing in today's memo counters that fact." . th this is a statement we just received in the last hour from sarah sanders. the democratic counter memo to the gop nunes memo makes clear that the christopher steele dossier did not inform the fbi's decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation even though that's the point that the white house is making here. another thing, because one of the points we've heard from democrats on the hill is that the way this entire thing was orchestrated, the president using his authority to release the gop memo that he believed would undercut the russia investigation, and yet using that same authority to keep secret and then delay the release of the democratic memo suggested that the republicans wanted a way to frame the debate and now frame the response to

this evolving issue. so as we've seen from the statement from sarah sanders, who's in south korea where it is now, what, 6:32 in the morning, it would suggest that this was predrafted and released to coincide with the release of this memo. so, again, a lot of politics at play here for a committee that is supposed to be and has to this point been nonpartisan in its work, aaron. >> all right. jeff bennett for us at the white house right now. frank, i'll turn to you and ask about the -- let me mention first we've got the entire group back with us, frank, jill wine-banks, michael, charlie savage and dana millbank joining us now. frank, i'll go back to you with this point about what just came from the white house, the statement that we heard from the white house likely as jeff noted predrafted prior to the release of this memo. what's your read on what the white house has had to say about this? >> so first we've seen sarah

sanders in her statement saying that the democratic memo is somehow politicizing all of this. and of course the irony here is that the nunes memo was equally if not more political in nature. but i also want to pinpoint something else she said, which is she keeps coming back to the dossier. and she comes back to this alleged statement, alleged statement of deputy fbi director mccabe to the committee that the fbi would never have sought electronic surveillance without the dossier. so, look, these are not mutually exclusive statements. if i tell you, aaron, that it's raining outside and you go ahead acting on that and gain 20 other people who tell you plus weather reports and meteorologic survey reports that all tell you, you know what, it's really raining outside, then you've independently corroborated all of that. and whether it kicked off from me telling you it was raining or not is not the point. it's how much that was used to

establish probable cause. and in the democratic memo today what we're seeing is they've determined the fisa court got what it needed, that the dossier was not critical player in that probable cause and that the court was properly notified of the basis of information provided in the affidavit. >> michael still watching this for us as well. mike, you've been going through the documents. i understand a new statement out from the house? >> that's right, adam schiff who along with his staff the top democrat on the intelligence committee has put out a statement now. he's the author of this memo. and here's the way he's presenting it now to the public. basically what he's saying is they're setting the record straight here. i'll read from his statement now. "the democratic response memo released today should put to rest any concerns that the american people might have as to the conduct of the fbi, the justice department and the foreign intelligence surveillance court, fisc, our extensive review of the fisa application and three subsequent renewals fail to uncover any evidence of illegal, unethical or unprofessional behavior by

law enforcement and instead revealed that both the fbi and justice department made exten extensive showings to justify all four requests. what's also interesting here that schiff says in his statement is that we know that the house intelligence committee voted two weeks ago to actually release a response memo to the nunes memo, which went public on february 2nd. the president rejected initially releasing that memo, the schiff memo in response two weeks ago. and there was some question as they went through this process of redactions with the fbi and with the white house itself whether they might go beyond what the democrats would consider appropriate redactions to protect sources and methods. what schiff says here in his statement is that the document we are releasing today is the proper product of good faith negotiation between the minority of the democrats on the committee and the fbi and the justice department. but what he also adds is that it's unfortunate that this is being released on the weekend. the weekend release of the democratic memo by the white house was delayed beyond what was necessary and to the

advantage of those seeking to mislead the american public. again, it's been three weeks since the nunes memo went out. democrats attempted in realtime to get their own response memo released at the exact same moment republicans rejected that attempt. democrats wanted it released a week later, the white house rejected that attempt and here you have adam schiff saying it's been three weeks here, the white house is releasing this on a weekend, of course the olympics are still going on, there's a lot of other news going on, they're taking some issue with the fact that the white house in their view is just trying to bury their response here. republicans having a three-week advantage here in terms of a head start in framing the narrative about what they said in terms of this carter page fisa application. >> dana millbank, interesting point there about this memo coming out at 3:30 on a saturday afternoon the day after we learned about more charges, additional indictment against paul manafort, the gates plea as well. what do you make of the optics here? >> well, of course everybody is

watching msnbc at this hour on saturday, so i wouldn't put -- let's have some faith in the viewers for that. >> right. >> but i think what has happened here is basically the white house and nunes won on this in a political sense. nobody was even thinking about the memo anymore. they got out there. they made their point. i mean each news cycle is an eternity right now. so now first of all it is a weekend but there have been so many other stories since then, so many other developments in the mueller investigation. this has a whole lot less oomph now. but the mitigating factor is the nunes memo in the first place wasn't exactly the smoking gun that was revealed. and you could even tell from reading the nunes memo that there were plenty of other factors that went into this decision. and that they were continuing to get renewal of these fisa warrants even under the trump administration. so in that sense it rebutted itself. and this is a bit of a

postscript or asterisk at the end. >> and charlie savage, tomorrow morning the white house is going to send out folks to the sunday morning talk shows, congress will be back in session on monday and these will be things that people are going to be talking about, both the release of this memo and the events that happened yesterday in washington. what do you anticipate might be the conversation that republicans will try to drive come tomorrow morning, come monday morning? >> well, the conversation around the nunes memo and now this rebuttal and the whole larger controversy about the use of steele information and the carter page fisa application has really existed on two tracks all along. there is this sort of takeaway for people who don't really pay attention to the news the way you or i or maybe some of the people watching this program right now do. and that is simply, oh, they used partisan research to get a wiretap on someone associated with the trump campaign. full stop i guess that was bad, this shows the whole investigation now is in the hands of bob mueller is tainted.

and if you're a trump supporter, you go away feeling that he's been vindicated, without really understanding even what the argument is actually about. then the other track is the one that's way down in the weeds. it's like, well, was the steele information the whole application or just a tiny piece of it? was the court told that his research was commissioned by someone with political motive against trump? or were they led to believe it was neutral information? why was this yahoo news article included? was it to corroborate steele even though we now know steele was its source? or is it for some other purpose? the nunes memo creates all these implications of wrongdoing that the democrats and others who had seen the underlying material were said misleading weeks ago when people were still thinking about this. now with this declassification if we want to return to those weeds, we can see why they were complaining, why they were saying that the nunes memo was garbage. because it says, well, look, here's the actual verbatim quote where the fbi tells the fisa court they think someone who is trying to discredit the trump campaign had hired steele, or

that the reason the yahoo article was there was not to corroborate steele but it was because carter page had then responded to something in that article and denied it was true. and so forth. it supports the critique of the memo, but i have to agree that was a million news cycles ago for the political purpose of giving mr. trump supporters takeaway they can feel satisfied that the whole investigation is not -- is garbage, it succeeded wildly regardless of the actual facts. >> all right. we'll continue with our panel of experts and reporters here in just a second. again, breaking news this hour that democrats on the house intelligence committee have released their memo on the fisa court process. their rebuttal if you will to the republican memo that came out a few weeks ago. much more coverage here on msnbc after this.

for singing definitely dry mouth has been a problem for me. i'm also on a lot of medications that dry my mouth. i just drank tons of water all the time. it was never enough. i wasn't sure i was going to be able to continue singing. i saw my dentist. he suggested biotene. it feels refreshing. my mouth felt more lubricated. i use biotene rinse twice a day and then i use the spray throughout the day. it actually saved my career in a way. biotene really did make a difference. [heartbeat]

i had a very minor fender bender tonight! in an unreasonably narrow fast food drive thru lane. but what a powerful life lesson. and don't worry i have everything handled. i already spoke to our allstate agent, and i know that we have accident forgiveness. which is so smart on your guy's part. like fact that they'll just... forgive you... four weeks without the car. okay, yup. good night. with accident forgiveness your rates won't go up just because of an accident. switching to allstate is worth it.

breaking this hour at msnbc, we have now received the democrats' response to the republican memo, the devin nunes memo on the fisa court process coming from the house intelligence committee. we are going through this document with all the redactions that are in it and talking to some of the experts who have been listening in on this process, watching this process. joining me now on the phone is california democratic congresswoman jackie speir, member of the committee. congresswoman, your thoughts about what the white house has allowed to be released in this memo today. >> the memo does exactly what we wanted it to do, to establish that the republican memo was a

ruse, that it was an effort by the white house to try and give the president cover so he could say he was vindicated. and the republican memo hit like a dud. and this memo is very clear. it establishes the truth, it corrects the record, it makes clear that the fisa application and the process was not abused. it was important to point out that with the application and the renewals you have four different judges, all of whom were appointed by a republican president. and they establish once again that it was important to provide truth. and it didn't begin with carter page, the investigation about trump's involvement with russia began with papadopoulos who was promoting the fact that the russians were going to dump e-mails, which in fact they did

dump. and frankly it corroborated most of the steele dossier. i was able to do independently from the dossier. >> congresswoman, the white house pretty quickly put out a statement today too saying that they released the democrats memo in an effort toward transparency, at the same time the white house still feels that it is a politically driven document. that it says fails to seriously address some concerns that are raised by the majority's memo in terms of partisan opposition research and other allegations. what do you make of the white house response to what they were able to allow the committee to release -- the democrats to release? >> you know, i think this whole escapade needs to be put to rest. and we need to once again focus on russia's engagement in our democratic process and to what extent they were linked with the trump campaign.

and the fact that they're trying to suggest it was opposition research that was supported by the democrats was actually specified in the fisa application. so, again, four different judges, four judges appointed by a republican president and they came to the same conclusion that the fisa application should be granted. >> so, congresswoman, where do we go from here? what happens on monday morning when congress is back in session, when the white house staff is looking at the next steps, the next days ahead, where does this memo set us up to go from here? >> actually, i think the memo should just be shelved because we have important work to do. and we should return to the investigation and the many individual witnesses that we still want to hear from.

we have former witnesses that really need to be subpoenaed to return to the committee to be interviewed again. and their documentation subpoenaed so we can actually review it. but, again, this has turned into a three ring circus that has been promoted frankly by the chairman, and he has taken his orders from the white house, whether it was the midnight run to the white house where it was all about masking and unmasking that turned out to be a dud, and then this most recent memo that turned out to be a dud. we need to get back to our jobs. >> all right, congresswoman jackie speier joining us on the phone from california. congresswoman, we appreciate your perspective. i'll ask you to stay with us. we do have, i want to share with you a tweet that's come up from adam schiff on your screen here now. some time ago republicans on our committee released a declassified memo that omitted and distorted key facts in order

to mislead the public and impugn the integrity of the fbi. we can now tell you what they left out. and then you see what looks like is an attachment, the memo thats been released today from the democrats on the house intelligence committee. we are of course staying on top of this breaking news of the release of that memo. much more here on msnbc when we come back. stay with us. and fiber, it could be wearing on you. tell your doctor what you've tried and how long you've been at it. linzess works differently from laxatives. linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation or chronic constipation. it can help relieve your belly pain and lets you have more frequent and complete bowel movements that are easier to pass. do not give linzess to children less than six, and it should not be given to children six to less than eighteen. it may harm them. don't take linzess if you have a bowel blockage.

get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach-area pain, and swelling. ask your doctor if 90 days of linzess may be right for you. this is food made to sit down for. slow down for. put the phone away, and use a knife and fork for. and with panera catering, it's food worth sharing. panera. food as it should be. 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. i'm mark and i quit smoking with chantix. i was a heavy smoker for 26 years. i smoked a pack and a half a day and i was able to quit with chantix. i never thought that i could quit,

but i did. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. without a doubt, chantix reduced my urge to smoke. 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. my older smoker-self would be so surprised. ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.

we actually wanted this house. so this has been held up for over two weeks. the fbi and doj had right away told the democrats what was wrong with their memo or their response to our memo. and they waited for two weeks before they actually did the redactions that were necessary to get this out. we wanted it out. we wanted it out because we think it is clear evidence that the democrats are not only trying to cover this up, but they're also colluding with parts of the government to help cover this up. and i think as you read it, you will see personal attacks on myself, personal attacks on chairman gowdy, with a lot of -- a lot of really interesting things that sound really bad like a lot that has been happening with this russia

investigation over the course of the last year, but what you're not going to see is anything that actually rejects what was in our memo. >> house intelligence compare devin nunes there reacting just a short time ago at the cpac conference just outside washington to the breaking news today, the release of the democratic memo from the house intelligence committee, a response to the committee's republican memo from a few weeks ago. ned price in washington, you've had more opportunity to go over the memo from the democrats. what other thoughts do you have? >> listening to chairman nunes at the cpac conference, i'm struck by his assertion that the schiff memo did not rebut anything in his original memo. i think he's wrong in that the schiff memo rebuts the premise of the nunes memo, the premise having been that surveillance --

fisa-derived surveillance on carter page was predicated on the steele dossier. what the schiff memo does, in exacting detail, is make clear that that was not the case. not only was the steele dossier not a primary source, it was one of many sources. the department of justice and the fbi were also candid and forthcoming with the foreign intelligence surveillance court about christopher steele, about the fbi's previous relationship with him, about the political motivations of the people who funded his research, and the reason for the fbi having terminated christopher steele as a source. so if you put that against what the original nunes memo argued and articulated, you're left with a nunes memo that really rings hollow, that is rendered meaningless and without any valid claims. >> jill wine-banks, devin nunes used terms like collusion and

made heavy accusations against the democrats who put out this memo today. what are your impressions of what nunes had to say? >> nonsense, would be the simple answer to it. the memo, which i have not had a chance to completely read, but from what i've heard and the one page that i have seen, is a very clear and lawyer-like rebuttal of specific facts. and let me just say that as a trial lawyer, timing matters. this is something that's coming three weeks too late. the country has already had three weeks to absorb what the republicans put out, which is clearly an incompletely and false version of facts, as now we can see. and that matters. the worst thing you would ever want, if you are the defense lawyer, is to have the closing statements of the prosecution be put forth even before a lunch break, just a one-hour break for lunch. you want to get in there right away so that no one can linger on the thoughts being left by

one side. so it was very bad. the redactions in this are probably no more necessary than they would have been from the original document. remember that when the document first was proposed by nunes, the republicans wanted it out. the president allowed it to be declassified and released in full while saying that the democratic memo could not come out. that is not a fair way to handle it. if the democratic memo is redacted, then the republicans' should have been. the democrats didn't want either to come out because they were concerned about national security and releasing sources and methods. so my reaction to what he's saying is it is just really wrong, and that as a citizen, it's concerning to me. and it would be even more concerning if i thought that the republicans who support trump would pay any attention to the democratic truth in this memo. i'm afraid that they probably wouldn't, so it may not matter that they've already had the

false impressions created over this long period. >> charlie, jill makes some interesting points there. does this memo suddenly become just a part of the noise where there are so many other things going on, and the memo is so much later than the gop memo that came out weeks ago, that this just doesn't really resonate with people, with the public, with citizens, as jill mentioned? >> it ought to. but it probably won't, i agree with that. the news cycle has moved on. we're talking about guns now. and, you know, by the time of course there's a vote on gun control and probably it gets voted down, the news cycle will have moved on again by then, that's sort of how things work in this country right now with the relentless pace of everything that keeps happening. nevertheless, i think for the historical record if nothing else, it's important to have this additional information out there, to show why democrats and others who had seen the underlying materials were so vehement that devin nunes and the republican memo was misleading the country and the

verbatim excerpt, quotes that are in the democratic memo, not just their characterization of things but the underlying quotes from the fisa materials should go a long a towards establishing, at least for the eyes of history, who was telling the truth and who was not. >> charlie savage, jill wine-banks, dana milbank, and ned price, we appreciate your time today, thank you. i'm aaron gilchrist, we appreciate you staying with us. we begin this hour with that breaking news, the democrats' version of the russia fisa memo was released just a short time ago. president trump had initially blocked its release, claiming it contained classified information. the redacted democratic memo counters the republican memo released earlier this month. it defends the fbi's use of the fisa courts and disputes the republicans' contention that the fbi sought countersurveillance based on the christopher steele