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 dossier.

the republican memo ignited public controversy after it detailed actions by the fbi. devin nunes, the republican chairman of the house intelligence committee, says the democratic memo is not much different than the republican memo. >> 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. 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 what you're not going to see is anything that actually rejects what was in our memo. >> let's turn now to nbc news white house correspondent geoff bennett joining us from the white house. geoff, how is the white house

reacting to this information release? >> reporter: hi, aaron. almost immediately after this memo was made public, we got a statement from white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders. i'll read an exception from the statement, because it is fairly lengthy. it begins thus, it says, while the democrats' memorandum attempts to undercut the president politically, the president supported its release in the interests 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 handwritieight of a pres campaign. now, as has been pointed out, the entire premise of the schiff memo makes the point that -- excuse me, the nunes memo was a

transparent effort to undermine the justice department and fbi and that the fbi did not abuse the fisa process. and democrats are also making the additional point that the president used his authority to declassify selective intelligence that he thought would undercut the russia probe, while using that same authority to delay the release of the democratic memo which argues the reverse. so there are many people on both sides who make the point that there are political motivations and agendas on both sides of this work that was once bipartisan, the work of the house intelligence committee, and that this whole episode continues to drive a fissure between the president and his own fbi, aaron. >> and geoff, we can't ignore that it's been, what, 24 hours or so since we learned about the indictment, additional indictments against paul manafort. we learned about the plea deal with rick gates. now we get this statement that obviously yesterday's news was

not great news for the white house. what's been sort of the total reaction, response to all that's been going on for the last 24 hours or so? >> reporter: the white house lawyer, ty cobb, characteristically keeps mum on these kind of things. he said these charges relate to the time that manafort and gates, before they joined the campaign. but some of the bank fraud alleged actually overlaps in time with their work for the campaign. rick gates, as you well know, stayed on the campaign well after paul manafort stepped aside. so there's a lot that rick gates could tell the special counsel about the campaign. he was on staff during that now infamous trump tower meeting when donald trump jr. arranged the meeting with the russian lawyer in hopes of getting dirt on hillary clinton. he was with the trump campaign when there was that change made

to the republican party platform, that russia-friendly change made to the republican party platform. so the fact that gates is now cooperating with the special counsel, does rachet up pressure on paul manafort to do the same. there is a lot that rick gates could take the special counsel about the potential collusion between the trump campaign and russia, as that part of the investigation continues, aaron. >> geoff bennett for us at the white house, geoff, we'll ask you to hang tight. i want to bring back in mike mimaldi who has been going through this document released by the democrats and working some of his sources as well. mike? >> this is interesting, the schiff memo tries to go at the heart of what was the nunes memo's primary argument about why the fbi was acting inappropriately here, when it sought a fisa warrant against carter page. it stat nunes' memo said that the fisa court was not informed that the

steele dossier was funded by a political opponent. he was funded by fusion gps and paid for by the clinton campaign. the schiff memo quotes directly from the fisa application, which is one of the most sensitive documents in all government. and it does in fact show that the fisa court was told that christopher steele was -- though he wasn't named in the fisa application directly, the names are masked here, that he was being -- the work that he was doing was in fact being paid for by a political campaign and that the fisa court was also told by the justice department here that they're drawing their own conclusions that there may have been an attempt in funding that work to discredit a political

opponent. we heard from devin nunes there, his office is now putting out a point by point rebuttal of the schiff memo. let's put this into context, this is the rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal, a dizzying situation here for our viewers. what devin nunes is saying is that he's standing by it, he says the american people clearly understand that the fbi used political dirt paid for by democrats. i've been speaking with staff on the republican side of the aisle here and they're saying what the schiff memo really does, it really mentions hillary clinton or the dnc. they're sticking to their point here which is that this is a political document, that the fbi used in order to obtain a surveillance warrant on an american citizen. >> but we are talking about sensitive information here, obviously we look through this document, you see all the information that's been redac d redacted. >> that's right. >> i can't help but wonder about

that part of it, if you set politics aside, we're dealing with sensitive information related to national security issues. when you get this political back and forth, are there risks associated with that, even though the information has been blacked out in these documents? >> that's right. to step back here, the process that was used, both to put out the nunes memo three weeks ago, and now to put out the schiff memo, has never been used before. this was an arcane process in the house that allows members to release classified information in the public space, perhaps not necessarily even with the approval of the white house. and so this is a road that democrats say that they didn't want to have to go down, but that once the republicans chose to do it, they had no choice if they wanted to answer those charges and misrepresentations as they view them publicly, they had to do this themselves. the nunes memo was only four pages. what republicans pointed out was there didn't even need to be re-daxre da re-dax -- redactions.

the democratic memo in order to rebut those charges, it's fascinate to go see they actually quote from a fisa application, this is something the public has never seen before, the kind of information that would be presented to an intelligence surveillance court in order to to do that. it's a consequence of what the democrats feel is so urgent that they wanted to do this. the other point is we've heard from the fbi itself that they didn't want either one of these memos to go out. they actually said it would be reckless, they tried to argue that president trump should not authorize the release of the nunes memo in the first place. they worked, as adam schiff says in his statement today, in good faith with democrats to eventually release their own memo but they would have chosen if they had their druthers to not release either one. this is what people are lamenting here, an increasing fact of life, the nation's intelligence, the nation's classified information is now being increasingly used in a political debate. >> has anyone on the hill expressed any concern about that notion, that this political

debate is happening with this sensitive information, this is an intelligence committee that should be doing the people's work on one hand and work that is sensitive and classified on so many levels, is there any concern that these guys are -- it's all politics and maybe we shouldn't trust any of the work they're doing as it relates to this particular issue? >> it's a good point. what we've heard, again, especially on the democratic side of the aisle, is concern about the fact that the intelligence committees in both the senate and the house have typically been nonpartisan, they've been bipartisan at the very least. this is really the only opportunity on the part of those elected to serve the people directly to provide some sort of oversight on the intelligence communities here. and that increasingly, if the intelligence community, if the justice department sees that lawmakers are going to use their information for political purposes, it might lead to the intelligence community being more reserved, not willing to share information with these committees for fear that it might be either leaked in a way

that compromises that information or misrepresented in a political space. and so the road that a lot of people are worried that this takes us down here is that the intelligence community, the intelligence agencies here are going to be less forthcoming with the congress and therefore less forthcoming with the american people about the work they do. we have seen on the part of the senate intelligence committee a much more rigorous investigation into russian meddling in the 2016 investigation, it has been bipartisan on the part of chairman burr and senator warner on the democratic side. this house intelligence committee really has been, unfortunately, a very political and partisan affair. and what i should point out, adam schiff says at the end of his memo, pointing out again that he didn't even want to have to do this in the first place, that with this memo now public, that he hopes the committee can turn back to its more bipartisan work here and try and get to the bottom of russian meddling in our elections here. >> mike and geoff bennett at the

white house for us, thank you both. we do want to share with you the full statement that we received from the house intelligence committee chairman's office, devin nunes' office, saying, quote, the american people now clearly understand that the fbi used political dirt paid for by the democrat party to spy on an american citizen from the republican party. furthermore, the fisa court was misled by mr. page's past interactions with the fbi in which he helped build the case against russian operatives in america that were brought to justice. it defies belief that the department of justice and fbi failed to provide information to a secret court that they had provided to an open federal court regarding their past interactions with mr. page. i want to turn back to our panel now on this. ned price, msnbc national security contributor and former special assistant to president obama, as well as harry litman, a former federal prosecutor and former deputy assistant attorney

general during the clinton administration, and jeff mason, white house correspondent for reuters. gentlemen, thanks for being here. ned, this has been a partisan fight over these memos. does the house intelligence investigation still have any credibility with folks who are watching this process play out? >> well, i think, aaron, the credibility has diminished over the course of the past nine or ten months, really starting with chairman nunes' gamut back in the spring of last year when he secretly collaborated with the white house to launder intelligence to bring to the fore baseless allegations about unmasking and leaking. let's be clear, it's been chairman nunes and his staff that have done that almost singlehandedly. you hear from ranking member schiff and his staff, as well as, frankly, from other republican members of the panel, including mike conaway, who

while nunes was recused from russia matters led the investigation, and led it with a much higher degree of success than we've seen from devin nunes. i don't think it's right to impugn the entire committee. i think it's right to place blame where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of chairman noon egg nunes. >> do you think this puts the question of abuse to rest, do you think? >> i think so. the allegations in the nunes memo were always pretty dubious. the schiff memo shows everything was done by the books, the concept of overreliance on the steele dossier was blown out of the water, it's perplexing that

sarah sanders and devin nunes both talked about it which makes one wonder whether they even read the schiff memo. the danger issue that your panelists just spoke about, it does go in the other direction. when it came time to release the nunes memo, the fbi and the department of justice said expressly don't do it, it will reveal sources and methods. and it's very hard to know when things will be compromised in foreign intelligence. but on this memo, the schiff response, it was a collaborative process where the fbi finally gave its blessing. >> jeff, the white house responds continues to raise questions about the fbi. the white house still on offense against the fbi with this? >> oh, i think so. and i think the white house is also trying to give itself correct for letting this memo come out at all, but also by saying from the start in its response that everything in there is filled with things that they dispute.

to your question, yes, i think they will continue to go against the fbi. i think all of us are very interested to see when president trump is going to start tweeting about this. no doubt he's not happy with the information that has come out in it. but the white house did allow it to come out, that's been something that's been sort of a question mark for the last couple of weeks. >> we'll ask our panel to sit tight. joining us now from the california state convention were democratic congressman eric swalwell, i believe he's with us. congressman, can you hear me? >> i can, how are you doing? >> doing all right. we appreciate you making time for us today. your thoughts, now that this memo is out, and folks will have an opportunity to see the democrats' side. >> a complete rebuttal of what the republicans tried to put out, which i think can only be described as an effort to protect the president. now the public sees that this investigation began well before the carter page surveillance

application. it began with george papadopoulos. new information is out there that they previewed, the russians did, to george papadopoulos the anonymous dissemination of hacked information, quote unquote, dirt on hillary clinton. i think this raises the seriousness of the investigation and the fbi's work here and their credibility also i think has been restored. >> congressman, we've been picking this apart a little bit with our panel, as you talk about credibility. the fact that there seems to be this back and forth between the gop memo came out first, now the democrats' memo, and all this is playing out in public, if you will. does this start to call into question the credibility of the work that's being done in the house, the work that's being done in your committee? >> that's what we're up against every day, you know, republicans on the committee who seem to believe that their role is to be the lawyers for the white house,

and to be in the defense case for the white house and to not have the independence you need to understand what russia did and put reforms in place so it doesn't happen again. we've seen this since the chairman went to the white house after director comey testified to this memo, to the complete unwillingness to subpoena witnesses, documents, and confront individuals who have information to find out what happened. so, you know, yet, in spite of that, we have been able to on a unified front as depositimocrate been able to get to the public information that is concerning about what the russians did and hopefully can find some sense of unity in this country so this doesn't happen again. >> congressman, what's the next step in the process for the work that you're doing? when all is said and done, when a final report comes out on all of this from your committee, what do you want the public to be able to feel like they have some truth and some finality to the work you're doing? >> we have to get back to interviewing witnesses.

we haven't interviewed a witness in nearly over a month. we had steve bannon come in, he of course asserted a number of privileges two weeks ago. we have not received new information from witnesses in well over a month. there are dozens of relevant witnesses who we should still be hearing from. so it's time to get back to that work so we can tell the american people what we're going to do so this doesn't happen again, how we're going to make sure that social media is not weaponized, how we're going to give resources to states and counties so they can defend the ballot box. there's so much work to do, and really end these attacks on process and putting the government on trial. >> and given the things you just laid out there, how much of that work has to sit on a back burner until this process is done? are those things that can't happen until this committee has completed its work? >> we should be able to walk and chew gum and do everything else. there no reason we couldn't have been doing all of that in this

intervening period. when you don't have the facts on your side or the evidence on your side, this is a classic tactic, you put the government on trial. that's what we continue to see, to suggest that the fbi was out to get donald trump, it's so ridiculous and so hurtful to the independence of the department of justice and the rule of law in our country. but that's what we're up against. and i still hope that we can find unity and that republicans will look at this memo and see the seriousness of what was done by the russians and understand that this is not about parties. this can happen to either party. this is about defending our democracy. >> how do you respond to someone who says, well, hang on a second, if there is doubt that exists about how the government is doing its work, then the american people have a right to know that that doubt exists and listen to the conversation and have it picked apart so people can understand and make decisions for themselves? >> absolutely. that's a valid concern. however, never before have we,

you know, picked that apart during an ongoing investigation. this investigation is still open. bob mueller is getting guilty pleas by the day in this investigation. so to have a review of the investigation as it's ongoing is completely inappropriate. and it also, you know, just to put this in context of what this did, we turned over evidence by releasing the republican memo to subjects and witnesses in the investigation. so the white house and the president are people who are of interest in the investigation, and they now have evidence that you would never as an investigator turn over to them before many of them have testified to the special counsel or congress. >> all right, congressman eric swalwell, joining from us california this afternoon, congressman, we appreciate your time. >> of course, my pleasure. we'll take a quick break, back with more on msnbc in just a moment.

you might take something for your heart... or joints. but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember.

i know when i hand them the it's gonna be scary.car but i also know that we're gonna have usaa insurance for both my boys. it's something that they're not even gonna have to think of. it's just gonna be in the family. we're the tenneys and we're usaa members for life. it's 6 am. 40 million americans are waking up to a gillette shave. and at our factory in boston, more than a thousand workers are starting their day building on over a hundred years of heritage, craftsmanship and innovation. today we're bringing you america's number one shave at lower prices every day. putting money back in the pockets of millions of americans. as one of those workers, i'm proud to bring you gillette quality for less, because nobody can beat the men and women of gillette. gillette - the best a man can get.

we all want to know you know, the new, new thing. with xfinity's retail stores, you can now see the latest. want to test drive the latest devices? be our guest. want to save on mobile? just ask. want to demo the latest innovations and technology? do it here. come see how we're making things simple, easy, and awesome. plus come in today and ask about xfinity mobile, a new kind of network designed to save you money. visit your local xfinity store today.

welcome back. continuing coverage now on the breaking news this afternoon of the release of the democrat memo from the house intelligence committee, looking at the process by which the fisa court has been used. we of course got the republican memo a few weeks back saying that the fbi had misused the process and its abilities to get information to and through the fisa court. i want to show you also, the memo you see here on your screen, the democrats' memo mentions christopher steele who was the author of that controversial dossier. the quote here you see is,

christopher steele's raw intelligence reporting did not inform the fbi's decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation in late july of 2016. we want to go back up to mike, who's been going through this memo for us. mike, are you there? >> yes, i'm here. >> what can you add for us here as we continue to look through this document and get reaction to it as well? >> i think what i want to call attention to now, we've been talking about some of the things the memo does say. i want to talk about what the memo doesn't say or at least can't say. we of course have a significant number of redactions here that the -- adam schiff, the top democrat on the house intelligence committee, was able to work through with the fbi and justice department in order to make this a declassified document, a public document. some of the things that are declassified include information that perhaps could give us more insight into what we now understand to be the mueller probe was learning over the course of its investigation which began last july. one is the point that george

papadopoulos was another foreign policy adviser, his revelation that he was being contacted by russian agents was the fact that launched this investigation. there may be other individuals here, those names are redacted, other individuals that the fbi and justice department was looking at into into the carter page, which is the subject here as well. we know that there was an initial application in order for carter page to be surveilled by the fisa court in 2016. we know that it was renewed three times. the fact that it's renewed, we all know, means they were obtaining actionable information, the information they were obtaining from the wiretaps was providing results. the memo from adam schiff, unfortunately for us, it redacts what that information was that they were learning as they were.

one thing we do know is carter page traveled to russia just after the election. he told the committee that yes, the fact of his role in the campaign and the contacts he had with trump campaign officials were things he was being asked about when he was in russia. what the schiff memo suggests here is there was some more information here that the fbi and the justices department was able to learn over the course of their surveillance here. one thing that would be interesting to find out more about is the fact that the memo states that carter page lied to the committee in their interview with him last fall here, perhaps misleading the committee about what he told them about the nature of his conversations when he was in russia. >> mike, i'm wondering if anyone has expressed concern to you that so much of the process, we're now aware of so much more of how this all works. has anyone expressed any concern that maybe there might need to be some changes made to the process as a result of what we've all been able to learn at

this point? are we not even in that space yet? >> one of the things that democrats really complained about here when the nunes memo was released three weeks ago was the fact that at least the stated purpose on the part of the republicans for why it was so urgent to make this memo public was the fact that they believed that the government was abusing the fisa process. democrats pointed out that just in december, congress approved overwhelmingly reauthorization of that fisa program. and if that republicans really did have concerns about the ways in which political, you know, evidence might be -- or that the politics might be influencing this process, they should have included that as part of the effort to reauthorize the whole fisa program itself. that wasn't the case. and so what chairman devin nunes has said is that this memo is an important way for them to be able to in the future make perhaps changes to the way that the government can obtain these surveillance warrants against the american citizens. but the process for doing so legislatively has already left the station and this program has now been reauthorized for

another five years. >> all right, mike, thank you for your reporting and analysis on this. joining me now, former senior adviser for the democrat national committee, doug thornhill. republican strategist nicole nikpor. thank you all for being here today. and i'll start with you, nicole, and ask -- noelle, excuse me, and ask for your analysis today. >> i think we have really turned this into a political football, tossing it back and forth and back and forth and really have lost the whole focus on what this is about. this is about russia meddling in the elections. and we are coming up, we're right in the middle of the 2018 midterms. and what we have done is so horrible, and we've made this into, you know, what the republicans' response is, the

democrats' response is. i understand the basis, i understand the passion, what nunes is getting at. i understand, you know, about using information to -- you know, for surveillance that was wrong, i understand that. but the problem of it is that we are making this so -- this argument is dividing the right and left so much. and with the fbi, that we are not putting our efforts on looking at one thing, which is against russia, and to boot, it's an ongoing investigation. it's an open investigation. and we are releasing memos from the republicans' side, and the democrats' side with the re redactio redactions. this is horrible that we're doing this against our country. this isn't democracy. >> doug, do you see it her way or do you feel differently? >> i echo that russia attacked

our country in 2016 and tried to undermine our democracy, and the president and the republicans in congress don't seem to want to do anything about it. he's put together no task force, you hear nothing from congressional leaders about ways to make sure this doesn't happen again. he's done a disservice to this country in terms of making sure that what russia did doesn't happen again. and we can get into a back and forth on these memos, you know, i believe that the republican memo was basically just talking points, and really the reality is the fbi investigation started with george papadopoulos before carter page. and papadopoulos has already pled guilty to making false statements about his contacts with russia. so, you know, look, i agree with noelle, i think we need to focus on making sure that russia never tries to undermine our democrats again. >> bradford, it's been modernren

a month since there have been interviews on this committee about the work they've been doing. what do we move the process forward, what potential progress is there if there have not been any interviews in such a long period of time? >> i kind of echo the sentiments, unusually, i echo the sentiments of everyone. this is a process that needs to move forward. they can argue all day long, one side is going to argue one thing, the other side is going to argue the other thing. they each leave separate things out of their memo. at the end of the day, both these memos are politically motivated, the republicans have one side, the democrats have another side. the democratic memo, they don't address a lot of things that the republican memo addresses, such as the fbi deputy director saying they relied heavily on this dossier. so there's different ways to look at this and different points of view. the point is we have to get back to the focus. and this whole investigation, everything started, to say that the trump campaign colluded with

the russians. we still have not seen this. it's the same thing of saying where are the weapons of mass destruction. i'm still waiting to see where the campaign colluded with russia. we're seeing a lot of peripheral things. we're seeing a lot of things that are going around the orbit. when are we going to get to the point where everyone is saying the campaign colluded with russia? we have seen zero to indicate that the campaign colluded with russia. everything is in the orbit but there's nothing to link it directly to it. >> okay, but if we look at that notion that everything is in the orbit, we're looking at almost two dozen indictments that have come out of this investigation. and everybody seems to have -- or not everybody, but a lot of the people that we know whose names are out as part of this investigation, names we recognize, people who have close advertise to the white hou

ties to the white house, who have or had contact with president trump, how do you completely dismiss the possibility that some of these people could be connected to the president and that some wrongdoing may have happened? >> because the charges don't uphold that. you've got one guy who's got charged with lying to the fbi about his contacts with russia but nothing in terms of collusion. you've got manafort who is charged with everything that you can charge an individual with, bank fraud, wire fraud, the new indictment that came out, i think there's like 32 new counts, anything that could be charged with, he is charged with. and then you have gates who has just pled guilty, but again, his charges don't relate to collusion of the campaign with russia. so what i'm saying is, when i'm saying it's in the orbit, meaning there's people associated with the campaign that are being charged with crimes but not the crime that we're looking for, which is that the campaign colluded with russia. there is nothing that is included in that. there is only peripheral charges. manafort's charges have zero to do with it.

gates' charges had zero to do with it. unless gates all of a sudden comes to jesus and says, hey, manafort told me something that has to do with the campaign, which i don't think he has that information. i personally think if they had that information, they would be charged with that information. i think mueller wants to put the fire underneath people's feet and maybe he thinks manafort has some information and that's why he's superceded the indictment. but you don't see manafort coming forward with any information. you don't see him being charged with any information that would result in the campaign colluding with russia. >> if i could jump in here real quick. >> go for it, doug. >> the collusion, that's being looked at. what my point is, is that russia obviously impacted the election, they tried to interfere with the election, they had success not just with hacking but with events on the ground. and we have heard very little, if anything, from the president about pushing back on russia. he has not imposed the sanctions

that were passed by congress. he has rarely ever said anything bad about vladimir putin. to me as an american that is really unsettling. he is the president of the united states. he should be standing up for this country and pushing back on russia did. while he benefitted from it this time around, who knows what the russians do in 2018 or 2020 or 2022? >> noelle, i do want to ask you, the nunes memo came out, we saw the president speak about that. this instance, today at 3:00 in the afternoon or so when this democratic memo, the schiff memo came out, we have not seen or heard much of a response. what do you make of that and how it appears? >> you know, not much. i will tell you, looking beyond what the president's response is to this, you've got to look at what other countries are thinking about the united states and the way this is being handled and the way this is on the news and the republicans versus the democrats versus the

fbi. you've got to wonder what other countries are thinking about how we're handling this process. and what this does, let's say trump does not enforce deep sanctions on these russian bad actors for doing this. this will encourage other people to come and try to meddle in our elections again, because it's a free for all. it's very important, how we handle this, you know, how we handle the sanctions against russia for doing this. we've got to show, you know, the russians that we mean business, that you can't midd- meddle in elections, or other countries will look at this and go, aha, look at this, they can't even get anything together and they're not even going to punish countries for doing this, so we may jump on board and try to shake things up in the next election. >> all right. we will leave this part of our conversation there. noelle, doug, bradford, thank you for your time. much more to come here on msnbc. stay with us. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job

from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase.

if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take

and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. (gasp) (singsong) budget meeting! sweet. if you compare last quarter to this quarter... various: mmm. it's no wonder everything seems a little better with the creamy taste of philly, made with fresh milk and real cream. with the creamy taste of philly, you can switch and save time. it pays to switch things up. [cars honking] [car accelerating] you can switch and save worry. ♪ you can switch and save hassle. [vacuuming sound] and when you switch to esurance, you can save time, worry, hassle and yup, money. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved hundreds. so you might want to think about pulling the ol' switcheroo. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.

we want 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 this last year. but what you're not going to see is anything that actually rejects what was in our memo. >> republican devin nunes there. the house intelligence committee chairman talking about the release of the democrats' memo, their response, a rebuttal, if you will, to the gop memo that came out a few weeks back about the fisa court process. and he used terms like "collusion," saying the democrats are trying to cover up information with the memo that they have released today. adam schiff, the author of the democrats' memo that we're seeing today, also released a statement a short time ago, we can put it on the screen. he said, some time ago republicans in 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 that is, he says, what you would find in the democrats' fisa memo that is out today. i want to bring in michael

singleton, and katie phang. you heard what devin nunes had to say, what do you think is his strategy? >> i think both democrats and republicans are using this as a political football, right? remember when republicans released their memo a couple of weeks ago, if you saw a lot of columns, blogs, listened to pundits on the conservative side, it was essentially a rallying cry, see, this is exactly what we've been talking about all along, democrats are targeting president trump yet there is no evidence of collusion. however, on the democrats' side, they were saying, the republicans haven't released anything, they're hiding things, they're trying to protect the president, the president only approved this because it serves his political interests. i think when you look at this objectively, it does appear that both sides are playing the politics here. i think we need to step back a little bit, look at what russia did. the implications on this as it relates to what it means for our

democracy is severe. we already know from our intelligence community they're trying to do the same thing again with elections coming up in midterm. i hope both sides at some point can have a cooling off period and look at this objectively and do what's necessary to protect the country. you have to enforce sanctions on russia, which the president hasn't really done. republicans and democrats have to work together to do this. we cannot have the expectation for one side to do it alone. >> katie, michael laid out the situation we're facing here, and every possible way you could look at this, from a real and perceived way, i think. what's the impact, do you think, on where this investigation goes and how this process can play out in a way that's effective? >> so the release of what we're calling the schiff rebuttal memo is actually something that's going to bolster the credibility of the top law enforcement agencies in our country. so what impact does that have on perhaps even the mueller investigation and some of the parallel investigations going on in the house and senate?

it basically serves to reinforce for the american public that they can have faith in the ability and the lack of any type of partiality on the part of the fbi or the doj in terms of the investigation being conducted. a really good point just brought up was the fact that, look, mueller's charge in terms of his specific investigation is to look and see if there's been any collusion or conspiracy with the russians vis-à-vis the campaign, the presidential election, and generally what's going on in our american political system. so you're seeing things like the manafort indictment, rick gates' guilty plea. you're seeing these things happen, and you know what, the date of that schiff memo was january 29th, that's last month. so much has happened since then. if you do look at that memo, it rightfully rights the ship that devin nunes was trying to sink, and really, let's put that memo aside, let's put aside the nunes memo, and let's focus on the evidence. as a lawyer, i want to know what the evidence is when i'm going to make a case.

>> what we've seen so far, you think is just a side show? >> well, listen, there's been a whole lot of political theater. from a legal perspective, that has nothing to do with the law. that's why it's important, why you don't hear from mueller. you don't see him making statements. you hear him speak through his indictments. you hear him speak through his actions. and so mueller is steadfastly trudging along, doing what he's doing, and he's casting his net and bringing in the people that are guilty of certain crimes. i've heard a lot, even in the last segment, oh, we haven't seen a direct crime charging collusion, which is not a crime by the way, charging conspiracy with russia. you know what? mueller's not done yet and you're not obligated to only charge what you know so far. rick gates just pled guilty. he was the deputy campaign manager for the trump campaign. he was in the campaign from march 2016 to march 2017. what happened during that time? the trump tower meeting in june of 2016 where paul manafort was

present. and so there's a lot of unanswered questions. you know what, there's a lot of people that still haven't spoken to mueller yet. >> aaron, can i respond just really quickly? as much as there is a legal side of things, there is also a political side of things. with elections coming up, the average american person doesn't understand the legalese. if you're a registered republican, you look at this as an attack on president trump. i think democrats need to understand that. that's why i believe you're seeing a shift as it relates to congressional numbers where before it was looking like democrats would win overwhelmingly, now that's beginning to change. >> all right, michael and katie, thank you. we're back with more in just a moment. 1, 2, 3, push! easy! easy! easy! (horn honking) alright! alright! we've all got places to go! we've all got places to go! washington crossing the delaware turnpike?

surprising. what's not surprising? how much money sean saved by switching to geico. big man with a horn. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. i'm trying to manage my a1c, and then i learn type 2 diabetes puts me at greater risk for heart attack or stroke. can one medicine help treat both blood sugar and cardiovascular risk? i asked my doctor. he told me about non-insulin victoza®. victoza® is not only proven to lower a1c and blood sugar,

but for people with type 2 diabetes treating their cardiovascular disease, victoza® is also approved to lower the risk of major cv events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. and while not for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. (announcer) victoza® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing, or swallowing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. gallbladder problems have happened in some people. tell your doctor right away if you get symptoms. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion, and constipation.

side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. change the course of your treatment. ask your doctor about victoza®. don't we need that cable box to watch tv? nope. don't we need to run? nope.

it just explodes in a high pitched 'yeahhh.' yeahhh! try directv now for $10 a month for 3 months. no satellite needed. . more reaction on today's breaking news. msn msnbc richard lui is joined by maxine waters. >> right here at california democratic convention and this is all of the talk. the memo that you've been covering, the ten-page democratic response. maxine waters here with us. i stole you before you had to go on the stanley cu

-- the stage. the ten pages and this makes the republican memo inert. >> absolutely. one of the things we know right away is they left out four important points. information that if they had been up front about what they were attempting to do, they would have included it. and so the democrats now have put out this memo showing that there was great suspicion by the fbi about what they were attempting to do. they would have included it. and so the democrats are maybe now -- acting as a special agent. same is true of papadapoulos. i don't know how long he's been involved but he was a target. and believe that he may have been cooperating with them. this is important stuff. the other thing is it confirms for me the fisa court is a sound

court. that does not play around with frivolous information. that they demand documentation and that they have not in any way just used the dossier that is so talked about as the information that allowed them to take action. >> we are standing in the south of california where devin nunes district is at and he came out after the memo, and he said this reaffirms the arguments that republicans have been making and they had made through the memo. do you agree with his response? >> nun he es has learned to lie face of facts. he has undermined his own credibility in so many ways. don't forget he was the one who tried to show proof that obama had wiretapped into the president and came up with false documentation. further, with this memo that they have put together, trying to show that the fbi and the doj somehow was colluding with the

democrats. or with hillary clinton and it is proven false. and so he absolutely should have mud on his face now. >> representative waters, thank you so much. i know you have a busy schedule and you have to get on the podium. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> you could see despite the difficult of trying to balance a long speech and following clearly with the breaking news of the ten-page memo coming out. back to you. >> richard lieu a in san diego. thank you. much more after a quick break here on msnbc. looks not. trails are covered. paths aren't what they used to be. roads nowhere to be found. ( ♪ ) and it's exactly what you're looking for. ( ♪ ) and it's exactly what you're looking for. 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've been staying on top of the breaking news. the democrats releasing their fisa memo a short time ago. it is a point by point rebuttal to the nunes memo. the democrats say the department of justice outlined a multi--pronged reason for the surveillance of carter page. the department of justice cited multiple sources to support the case for that surveillance. democrats note the fisa warrant application and renewals were approve bid four different judges and fisa was not used to spy on then candidate donald trump or his campaign. that wraps it up for this hour. i'm aaron gilcrest. stay for updates as it happens. all in with chris hayes is next. make it a great saturday, everybody. > tonight on "all in." >> lock her up. lock her up.

lock her up. >> as they cheered at cpac -- >> pleading guilty. >> blood money. >> yet another top trump aide pleats guilty. this time to conspiracy against the united states. >> why are you pleading guilty? >> tonight, what we know about the fifth guilty plea in the mueller probe. what the flipping of rick gates means for paul manafort. just what were these two up to with their massive alleged money laundering ring? and how it may all tie back to the president. >> that's what he said. that's what i said. that's obviously what the, our position is. >> plus, the mass corporate exodus away from the nra as the president fully aligns himself with gun dealers and the president gets gruesome on immigration. >> they slash them with machetes. >> a trymaine lee report on fearmongering and ms-13. >> they should give him a retainer terms of promotion and outreach. >> when "all in" starts right now.