enforcement to then go into that black market and buy and sell guns and make arrests of the folks who are in there doing it illegally. >> that would be very tough on the black market. >> exactly. >> thank you. >> i represent central florida and whether e were deeply affec pulse. the people want to see their elected leaders working together to do something. so i'm heartened -- >> this didn't happen after pulse. how bad was pulse and nothing happened? >> thank you for bringing us all together. i heard ideas, i hadn't heard that one yet. i have a bipartisan bill to remove the sticky amendment which prevented the last couple of decades the cdc and other federal agencies from researching gun violence. and i think that your secretary of hhs has said he thinks we should be able to research gun

violence. it's a key piece having vast and scientific data helping us address this public health issue. and so i would hope that, you know, we as lawmakers can have opinions about policies, but we should all have good sets of facts. and it's an easy fix. we just have to strike one sentence in the existing law to enable us to conduct the research that is needed. >> thank you very much. maybe we'll sum up pretty quickly. do you want to go really quickly? >> i do. only because congresswoman esty brought this up. this is a bracelet marjory stoneman douglas has been selling back home. i want to give it to you because i want this to be the last one of these that we ever have to have. >> good, i like that. >> and if we can do -- if we can do universal background checks and ban bump stocks and increase the age to 21 and get rid of the

dicky amendment and do it now and show the american people and my constituents, the people in parkland, the grieving families and the students that were actually ready to act, they'll feel better and you can get this done, mr. president. >> thank you. thank you very much. thanks. thank you. so, if i could just sum up, chris and john, pat, joe, maybe you could all get together and you'll start it from that standpoint. other people, diane, you have some very good ideas. we all have -- i think everybody, marco, i know you have a lot. if you could all get together and we could put in one great piece of legislation. chuck, i think that you're going to have an amazing result in the votes. the votes are hard to get in congress. that's what's been happening. we've been having amazing results. people are going to be shocked to see the numbers. it's not going to be 60, it's going to be way above 60. it may be a number nobody would even believe. people want to see something happen. but they want to see something

good happen, not just another piece of -- i mean, you didn't pass anything, let alone some good stuff. we want to pass something great. and to me something great has to be where you stop it from happening. and i think there is only one way. but, again, if you feel not to have that, you understand, i want a counter. i want a very strong counter punch, because if you have a strong counter punch, they're not going in and you're not going to have this problem any more. remember the 98% figure. 98% of these attacks, gun-free zones. no backlash, no death to them. death to everybody else. but if you four could get together and do something and maybe set the foundation, add to the foundation some of the great things said, we would have -- we're going to have a bill -- steve, it's very hard to add the one thing you want. i will tell you, i'm a fan. >> still working. >> let's consider for a separate

bill. we also want things that can be approved. you have to look at the age of 21 for certain types of weapons. i mean, some people aren't going to like that, but you're going to have to look at that, very seriously. and i think we're going to have a vote. i think it's going to be a successful vote and i will sign it. and i will call whoever you want me to. if i like what you're doing, and i think i like what you're doing already. but you could add to it. but you have to be very, very powerful on background checks. don't be shy. very strong on mentally ill. you have to be very, very strong on that. and don't worry about bump stock. we're getting rid of it. you don't have to complicate the bill by adding another two paragraphs. we're getting rid of it. i'll do that myself. because i'm able to. fortunately we're able to do that without going through congress. so, if the four of you could work together and come up with some beautiful foundation, add and subtract to it, put it for a vote, let's get it done. that's what we have to do. >> mr. president, what do we do

about weapons or easily accessible on our streets? >> what you're going to have to do is discuss it with everybody -- no, it's a very complex solution, you do. you have weapons on the street. that's what we're talking about with black market. these are black market weapons. the problem, diane, is these aren't where you walk into a store and buy. somebody hands you a gun -- >> you go in a store and you can buy an ar-15. you can buy a tech-9. you can buy all these weapons. >> this is what you're going to have to discuss. >> bullets. >> yeah. joe and pat, you're going to have to discuss that. you'll sit down with diane and everybody else and you'll come up with something. and i think -- i really believe it has to be very strong. i'd rather have you come down on the strong side instead of the weak side. the weak side would be much easier. i'd rather have you come up with a strong, strong bill. and really strong on background checks. with that, we'll end it.

i want to thank everybody. i really believe we're on the road to something terrific. thank you all very much. thank you. thank you very much. >> mr. president, would you see yourself supporting an assault weapons ban? >> thank you very much. >> more listening on guns, most powerful moment eyewitness came from ted deutsche who handed the president a bracelet from marjory stoneman douglas. the last time we had this conversation, he responded talk amongst yourselves and be strong. hi, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. on a day -- a picture emerging of a wounded jared kushner in one corner and a temporarily fortified john kelly in the other. one white house official describes it to axios this way. javanka and kelly are locked in a death match. only one survives. more questions about the president's feud with his own attorney general who he attacked on twitter this morning with

this pointed barb. quote, why is a.g. sessions asking the inspector general to investigate potentially massive fisa abuse? will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on comey, et cetera. isn't the i.g. an obama guy? why not use justice department lawyers? disgraceful. sessions responded, as long as i'm the attorney general, i will discharge my duties with integrity and honor and this department will continue to do its work in a fair and impartial manner, according to the law and constitution. one of the common denominators when donald trump erupts on twitter, jeff sessions, it is his unbridled rage when it comes to the mueller investigation. and on that front, our colleagues at nbc news are out with a big news scoop today about what bob mueller wants to know about donald trump's situational awareness about that democratic hack of hillary clinton's campaign e-mails. carol lee and katy tur out with the bombshell.

mueller asking what trump knew about hacked e-mails before release. it is a rare peek inside the special investigation. it is the clearest indication yet that the three former trump campaign officials who have all pleaded guilty to crimes, who are all working for mueller may be helping him fill in the campaign's contacts with russia in a much more detail than we've understood until today's report. from that nbc account, mueller's investigators have asked witnesses whether trump was aware of plans for wikileaks to publish the e-mails. they have asked why trump took positions favorable to russia. the line of questioning suggests the special counsel is looking into possible coordination between wikileaks and trump associates in disseminating the e-mails which u.s. intelligence officials say were stolen by russia. trump's involvement may be hiding in plain sight. >> russia, if you're listening, i hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.

i think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. >> that statement came just days after hacked e-mails from the dnc were released on wikileaks and several months before clinton campaign chairman john podesta was hacked. one of the by lines on this report is our friend katy tur who joins us now along with natasha bertrand, intelligence and national security writer for the atlantic. kimberly atkins chief washington reporter for the boston herald. jeremy peters reporter with "the new york times". and from washington chuck chosen berg, former u.s. attorney, former cia official. now lucky for us an msnbc contributor. katie, let's start with you. unbelievable reporting and an unbelievable picture of the specificity with which bob mueller is piecing together the entire campaign. >> his significance in the reporting, it felt like the investigation was moving on to asking not whether donald trump coordinated or colluded with russia, but wloehether or not h obstructed justice once he got

into office. those are the threads that we had been following. that's what we had been hearing about. this points us back in the original direction, which is did donald trump himself potentially work behind the scenes to coordinate the release of those e-mails. that july 27th press conference is one that i was at, and that comment, russia, if you're listening, almost came out of nowhere. he was being asked about the dnc hacks and what he thought about them and whether or not he would call on russia not to meddle. and then estopped very abruptly, looked at the cameras, and said that. russia, if you're listening, find those e-mails. now there is one line of questioning that's looking into whether or not donald trump knew about more stuff that was going to come out. remember, these were released in batches. initially there were the dnc e-mails which started to come out around that time. later on in october was when the john podesta e-mail came out, the clinton campaign e-mails. and as you all remember, donald

trump used those to his advantage greatly during the end of the campaign when he needed to distract from the various scandals that he was involved in and point again at hillary clinton. the podesta e-mails came just hours after the access hollywood tape dropped. >> he always had a batch of leaked e-mails whenever he was in a hole. i want to show you asking him a question. >> does that not give you pause? >> no, it gives me no pause. if they have them -- kate, you know what gives me more pause? that a person in our government, crooked hillary clinton -- here's what gives me -- be quiet. i know you want to save her. that a person in our government, katie, would delete or get rid of 33,000 e-mails. that gives me a big problem. after she gets a subpoena, she gets subpoenaed and she gets rid of 33,000 e-mails? that gives me a problem. now, if russia or china or any other country has those e-mails, i mean, to be honest with you, i'd love to see them.

>> that was my follow-up question. this was the campaign at the time after this wanted to say that it was one big joke. they came out and said no, he was just joking, he didn't mean what he said. that question was a follow-up to the russia if you're listening. i was incredulous. are you serious about this, are you really asking a foreign government to interfere? and he doubled down. he doubled down on it in that moment. and then we know now that this is one of the things that raised a lot of red flags for fbi investigators. what was donald trump doing? why was he saying this? another line of questioning from the special councsel, did he tae the positions he was taking was he so friendly with russia because of his business interests? why would he do that? why would he feel it necessary to be so friendly to russia when a gop primary, when the gop voters and republican party which is what he was running on was so antagonistic towards russia? they didn't trust russia. it didn't make any sense. why would he go there. they're trying to figure that

out. i talked to another witness in the mueller investigation who sat for a pretty long interview. and they told me that the atmospherics are remarkable. they know everything. they aren't fishing. these investigators can tell you what room you were in, who you were sitting next to in that room, and what exactly you said while you were there. they're piecing together a puzzle. they have the building blocks for it, whatever metaphor you want to use. they're not cops, as one witness put it, who are going around trying to figure out a crime scene. they have it all and now they're trying to get the nail in the coffin. >> chuck rosenberg, i'm sure this sounds very familiar to you, and the two things that i've heard in the last couple days are in line with what katy suggests. we paid more attention to the obstruction of justice case because there has been more public facing pieces of it. the people would be sadly mistaken to assume bob mueller's team is not looking very closely

at russia's role and whether or not there was a conspiracy among russians. does that become -- does that become the underlying crime, if this moves into the kind of investigation where you're looking at who knew what and when is it >> sure, nicolle. in fact, maybe one of several underlying crimes. it's great reporting. and to take nothing away from it, i would also add it's not the least bit surprising. the central theme of the investigation has been russia, and the things connected to russia, whether it's money laundering or obstruction of justice or failing to register as a foreign agent. so, i'm not the least bit surprised by how the prosecutors are going about making their case. in fact, it's comforting because this is what good prosecutors do. and i imagine even though we haven't seen much of it, nicolle, it's going to be about russia in the end. >> and do you feel -- explain the methodology of prosecuting

this case this way, of having the 13 indictments already revealed, already unsealed, already made public against russians, of pursuing this line of questioning of whether or not there was coordination. and we know there was coordination. i mean, it sounds like what was revealed in katy's report for the first time as she just said, you know, this isn't someone drawing a sketch. this is someone literally filling in the fine features. so, the significance seems to be that he's trying now to close in on whether or not the president had knowledge of what his associates were doing, because we already know his associates -- his son was in contact with wikileaks. >> a whole bunch of people were in contact with either russia or wikileaks or cut-outs. and so putting aside two words, collusion and coordination, let me focus on a third word, nicolle, conspiracy. prosecutors love to use the conspiracy statute.

it's really rather simple. was there an unlawful agreement -- in other words, an agreement to do something that the law forbids and did one of the conspirators, any one of the conspirators take a substantial step, do an overt act to implement the conspiracy. and if the answer to those two questions are yes, there you go. that's a federal crime and it sweeps very broadly. >> and, katy tur, one thing i'm hearing, i'm sure you're hearing it, too, the comfort trump friends have had, he was too stupid to coordinator collude with his own campaign. he and hope hicks were high in the air on trump express tweeting away. this reporting about just how much bob mueller knows is putting people on edge. >> it also doesn't matter if they were too stupid. as we've seen with this investigative team and mueller's team is that they're willing to prosecute anything, even a small infraction.

it doesn't matter whether or not you knew what you were doing or you knew what you were doing was illegal -- exactly. i think that what it shows is that if donald trump even had a side conversation with somebody about this, that that's going to be a big piece of evidence for them. depends on what sort of contacts he had. and that might be a difficult thing to prove in talking to former prosecutors because he doesn't have a paper trail the way most people do. >> right. >> at least that we know of. he doesn't e-mail. you're not going to see a don junior e-mail trail like we saw with don junior. donald trump doesn't e-mail people, he calls them on the phone. one of the other people they're looking at and there is a line of questioning about is roger stone and natasha has great reporting on him as well. but what was roger stone doing? was he really fired or did he quit early on -- >> did he leave at all? >> or was he an unofficial advisor and could he have been the go between between donald trump and wikileaks. we know roger stone was bragging

about his contact with it. he tweeted on august 21st of 2016 that it's going to be podesta's turn in the barrel soon. a few weeks later it was podesta's turn in the barrel. what does roger stone know and how does he fit into donald trump's world? were they still talking? did they still have a relationship? >> and just to flip it around, donald trump never stopped talking to anyone he fired. so, if he somehow stopped coordinating or working with roger stone, he would have been the only one. he stayed in contact with corey lewandowski, stayed in contact with paul manafort. everyone else that got fired stayed in the tent. >> they generally do. he goes back to the same people over and over and over again. >> right. >> it's a push and pull relationship. that's just the way it is with him. he's mercurial at best. >> i want to ask you one more question, chuck. this raises questions -- when i read the lines in katy's and carol's report he's asking questions on donald trump's positions in russia, that seems like a line of inquiry that will

cross over to the time as president. those aren't just questions that need to be answered for during the campaign where the most obvious thing he did was change the gop platform to a pro-putin position on the ukraine. there are countless examples where, as president, he's refused to condemn russia for all sorts of things. is that a line of questioning that you believe bob mueller's investigators will be interested in pursuing up to the current time? >> absolutely so, nicolle. that's a very important question because it's the other side of the equation. side one, what are the russians doing for the trump campaign or for the president himself? side two, what is the president doing in return? and so even if you don't charge bribery, which requires a quid pro quo, showing that there was sort of a circle, a loop, a connection is crucial to a prosecutor.

if i may add one thing, nicolle to katy's point, she's absolutely right. you may not see an e-mail. you may not see a documentation of a conspiracy. but you almost never do. conspirators, criminals don't tend to reduce their criminal agreement to writing. they don't draw up contracts saying that you do this illegal act and i'll do this other illegal act. you infer it from circumstance. that's how prosecutors build cases. and the circumstances here, i would tell you, nicolle, are quite compelling. >> so, jeremy, it feels like we have this crush of evidence now that everything that looked fishy -- you know, the abuse that is taken out on reporters -- we're reliving that. i remember i was at the convention and i remember watching that and calling jason miller, who i think hadn't been fired yet and getting shouted down. i said, he's not asking manafort friends to put in a word to putin. >> why was manafort working for free. >> right, and nothing is for free as i think you're learning, mr. president. but this idea that the abuse

that the press took for asking these questions is all bearing out in the special counsel investigation and prosecution, where they are perhaps the only people in america other than katy tur, immune from the climate they created. the facts are rearing their heads in ways that are triggering the president. his rage against jeff sessions is -- that would have been our lead story if we didn't have this headline and other things. so, just weigh in on how the president is so obviously unraveling in plain sight. >> right. we were always told to take him seriously, not literally, right? but this is an example of when he should have been taken literally. indeed a lot of us did at the time. this was i believe right after he said ted cruz's father was somehow implicated in the kennedy assassination. same day, same press conference. one thing, and i've been talking to several people who have been interviewed by mueller's team in the last couple of weeks, picking up a lot of what katy is picking up. one of the things they have come back and said to me, to a

person, is the seriousness with which they are conducting themselves, the types of questions they are asking, the specifics, the details they are trying to nail down, reinforces were donald trump's lawyers cannot allow him to sit down with mueller's team because they believe, they fear that he will somehow end up not telling the truth, contradicting himself, or screwing up on some of the finer points. as we know, finer points are not exactly his strong suit. so, robert mueller is not yet certain to ask trump to testify, but expect that to come to a head. >> and does he need donald trump, natasha? >> it's the missing piece right now, isn't it? he needs to sit down with the president, he needs to ask him what was your intent when you fired jim comey. ask him directly why did you cross that misleading statement about donald trump's misleading statement at the trump tower.

he will ultimately need to go to the president. as we keep hearing, he only has one shot at it. when he goz him, he's going to have to have clear in his 3450i7bd the types of things he already knows about the obstruction angle and also the things he knows about the potential collusion angle which is why the story today is so interesting. it shows he's not -- he's pursuing two paths of the investigation equally. not just the obstruction which is the more public-facing angle, but also the collusion and whether or not there was any coordination between the trump campaign and wikileaks. and now we know -- i reported yesterday that roger stone was in touch with wikileaks despite all of his denials, throughout the last year that he was never in touch with them directly. so, the fact that that has come out really casts a lot of doubt on everything else roger stone hooz sa has said about his communication with wikileaks. if you were not in touch with the organization prior to the release of podesta e-mail, if you were in october and

november, what does that mean for the implications of potential collusion. >> and point out to me today what all the next things that become public in this investigation, with it in mind that they have a brand-new cooperating witness who was around through the entire manafort base of the campaign but who lasted much longer than manafort, was around the entire campaign through election day, every day went to the transition office and was in and around the trump white house staff as a senior member of the super pac in rick gates. so, between rick gates, mike flynn and george papadopoulos, there are a whole lot of people who know a whole lot of stuff, especially about their contacts with russia. >> right. and lot has been made about how much rick gates might have on paul manafort. it seems from what we've seen so far that they don't need a lot more on paul manafort. paul manafort is pretty much dead in the water. so, i think what the value that rick gates and his cooperation brings is far beyond that. it's about those campaign through the white house. i don't think this is just about

paul manafort. they wouldn't have cut this kind of deal and dropped the amount of charges that they did and essentially let him largely off the hook if he was not providing really crucial key information about his time in the white house, which as you pointed out, went beyond paul manafort. >> he was around them, i was reminded, katy tur, the day rick gates pleaded guilty. this is not a paul manafort story, this is a donald trump story. he was around until he was indicted. >> everything that happened during the administration, this all isn't happening in a silo. the campaign ended and suddenly the behavior is going to change. it all is funneling through. you were right to point out that the positions being taken because of his business interest, is that a factor, is someone that is extraordinarily relevant for his time in the administration. what is he doing on china? what is he doing on russia? what's he doing on all the other places he might be involved in, and how does that affect what he might do? it's one of those massive red

flags that so many ethics lawyers raised when he was going into office. and the reason why he needed to cut his ties completely with his business, which he did not do. >> and one thing i would add real briefly here is people who have been interviewed by mueller's team lately have been saying, almost all of them that i have talked to, said the circle is getting tighter. they sense that mueller is getting closer to something. it's hard to know what, but that that something is quite serious. >> and they also have a lot of theories that are getting very specific about who, and i don't think any of them are reportable yet, but the people who have been inside that room have a pretty good sense by the kinds of questions they're asking about who he has in his sights. i guess it's a good time to be a defense attorney in washington, d.c. katy tur, unbelievable reporting. thank you for spending time. >> thanks for having me. >> come back any day. when we come back, an operationally diminished jared

kushner for scrutiny about his contacts with foreign leaders. what we are learning about his pension for going rogue and how that contributed to his inability to get a security clearance. ahead, hope hicks told the truth about the fact she tells lies to the president. at ally, we offer low rates on home loans. but if that's not enough, we offer our price match guarantee too. and if that's not enough... we should move. our home team will help you every step of the way. still not enough? it's smaller than i'd like. we'll help you finance your dream home. it's perfect. oh, was this built on an ancient burial ground? okay... then we'll have her cleanse your house of evil spirits. we'll do anything, (spiritual chatter) seriously anything to help you get your home. ally. do it right. i'm lucky to get through a shift without a disaster.. my bargain detergent couldn't keep up. so, i switched to tide pods. they're super concentrated, so i get a better clean. number one trusted. number one awarded. it's got to be tide

your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance.

we are back with breaking news. "the new york times" maggie haberman, reporting hope hicks white house communications director is resigning today. hope hicks, the white house communications director, one of president trump's longest serving advisors said wednesday she was resigning.

hicks, 29, a former model who joined trump's 2016 presidential campaign without any experience in politics became known as one of the few aides who understood his personality and style. maggie goes on to report that she's been considering leaving but her resignation does come one day after she testified for eight hours before the house intel committee telling the panel that in her job she had occasionally been required to tell white lies, but she never lied about anything connected to the investigation into russia's interference in the 2016 election. president quoted in the story in maggie haberman's piece in "the new york times," nbc still working to confirm this news, but maggie here has a quote from president trump who writes -- who says, hope is outstanding and has done great work for the last three years. she's a smart and thoughtful as they come, a truly great person. i'll miss having her by my side. when she approached me about pursuing other opportunities, i totally understood. i'm sure we'll work together

again in the future. eli joined the table. you covered this white house for a long time. your thoughts? >> well, there are a few people in this white house closer to the president than hope hicks. not just proximity wise, her desk being right outside the oval, but she was with him from the start of her campaign. this is someone the president really considers a second daughter of sorts. she's very close to jared and ivanka and he really relies on her, oftentimes more than initially the press secretary, more than sean spicer. maybe even more than sarah sanders and other advisors to interface with reporters and get his story out there. it's just a major loss for the president. and i would also view this -- we don't know 100% what is driving this. we know that she was involved with rob porter, that that had to be a traumatic couple of weeks for her to go through that. we know obviously it's tau traumatic for a 29-year-old to be facing a grand jur and i testify and talk about that and potentially face some legal problems as well. but within the white house, what we saw, we see jared kushner on

the hot seat. hope is part of the jared and ivanka wing. yesterday we saw josh rafael who is very close with hope hicks. this is jared kushner's outgoing white house communications director. hope and josh really worked together. jared is in some trouble. i think what we're starting to see is the unraveling of that power structure within the west wing. i don't know if it speaks to what happens to jared's position, but certainly it is a big loss for the president. >> let me just throw out two thoughts and ask you to react to them, jeremy. one, we opened the show by saying -- it is a standoff, and the jared and ivanka wing has suffered a big blow with jared being stripped of the clearances necessary to do his job. with josh leaving, we -- that news broke during our hour yesterday. hope hicks, that breaking during our hour. thank you, news gods. anybody not having the benefit of knowing her, the white house communications director is

someone who testifies under oath of telling lies is incapable of having the title white house communications director even in this weird white house. >> it was an astounding comment for a white house communications director to make -- i can only imagine the hair on the back of your neck standing up when you heard someone acknowledging that they had to lie to the press as part of their job, a regular part of their job. >> i guess what's stunning is everyone -- you know, i worked for controversial figures from george bush to dick cheney to sarah palin. you were asked to argue and defend your boss. they do incredibly polarizing things and sometimes they are accused of mishandling the truth. with the iraq war and wmd, i have heard this critique before. i'm not saying it's rare for communicator to be charged with lying. it's rare for a communicator to testify that she has been required to tell white lies for the president. it's a different -- because the president is calling in the lies

and the little white lies about little things. i have a 6-year-old. kids that lie about little things grow up and lie about big things. this gets to the fundamental lack of credibility this white house has. >> there is a big difference between being a communicator and spinning. >> right. thank you, that's what i was trying to say. >> that it is to say to your boss, the president of the united states, knowing that you have to, i don't know, spin him or lie to him. is it to prevent him from having a reaction? adds to the narrative of his staff treating him as if he is a child in some sense, and given she laz been sort of seen her relationship almost as a trump whisperer. she understands him, she gets him, she knows how to manage him if that includes having to lie to him. >> that's her testimony. and then i guess where this comes back to russia for me is we know that his briefers don't tell him anything about russia because it upsets him. they put it in writing. a pdb he doesn't read.

now we know that his communicator lies to him because he likes exaggerations and lies. what does this say about the people around the president? >> well, hope hicks, giving her again the benefit of the doubt of naivete perhaps, it's also interesting she is very much in mueller's cross hairs. we saw great reporting from "the new york times" a couple weeks ago that said she was being asked about essentially whether or not -- mark corral owe, the former spokesman for trump's legal team, had been interviewed by mueller, was going to be interviewed by mueller and he was going to tell him that hope hicks had essentially tried to or suggested hiding donald trump, jr.'s e-mails from investigators or from whoever might ask about them. so she was in the cross hairs of a possible obstruction of justice probe. and she's also, of course, very much in the -- she was very much in the back room of the white house. and she knew everything that was going on in terms of his intent for firing james comey. she was very instrumental in

this whole investigation. if she told white lies and if she admitted that, it makes you wonder whether she told white lies to perhaps the fbi. >> we now as a news organization, nbc news has confirmed what "the new york times" broke, that white house communications director hope hicks is resigning from her job and hans nichols is on duty for us at the white house and joins us now. hans, what are you hearing? >> reporter: well, nicolle, we have statements from the president as well as chief of staff kelly. i'm going to read them to you. the interesting thing about what the president is saying, he's saying hope hicks is going to be pursuing other opportunities. that's the president's language. here's what he said. hope is outstanding and has done great work for me the last three years. she is as smart and thoughtful as they come, a truly great person. i will miss having her by my side. but when she approached me about pursuing other opportunities, i totally understood. i am sure we will work together in the future. that's the president of the united states, a direct quote. let me read you also what chief of staff john kelly is saying. he's saying, when i became chief of staff, i quickly realized

what so many have learned about hope. she is strategic, poised and wise beyond her years. she became a trusted advisor and counselor and did a tremendous job overseeing the communications for the president's agenda including the passage of historic tax reform. she has served her country with great distunks. to say she will be missed is an understatement. finally, we have hope hicks herself saying, there are no words to adequately express my gratitude to president trump. i wish the president and his administration the very best as he continues to lead our country. so, there we have it. three official statements. the white house is confirming this. i'll let you guys suggest what it means back there. nicolle? >> hans, come back out if you hear anything. let me ask you, i believe barbara mcquade has joined us. natasha brings up the part of the mueller investigation that's mostyork times" reported mark co

that worked in the ash croft justice department, i believe knew bob mueller well from his time as fbi director. he quickly went into the trump orbit, quickly jumped back out. but one of the things that surfaced he taken aback by something hope hicks said about misstatement she crafted aboard the air force one where they lied to the media outlets asking about don junior's meeting in trump tower to meet with russians. hope hicks, according to "the new york times," said to mark caralo, it will never get out, no one will ever know. there were some concerns. report ed in "fire and fury" and "the new york times" and other outlets, i apologize to all of them, that that was a red line, if you will, for caralo who departed his role as one of the legal spokespeople for the trump legal team. can you speak to what kind of important hope hicks plays as a witness in both the obstruction of justice investigation and as the person who was briefed by the fbi about ongoing russian

efforts to contact trump family members, trump associates when she was in the white house, how she might also play into the russian coordination and contact and collusion investigation? >> in light of her close relationship with president trump and for such a long time, it seems like she is a very key person in all of this. the reporting about mark caralo was so interesting because what he said at the time was he thought in his opinion that he had observed obstruction of justice. because she said something like those e-mails, which told a different story than the one they were telling in the press release, would never see the light of day. that suggested that there could be some destruction of evidence that i think sent him running om r the team. and so i think that part certainly speaks to the obstruction of justice investigation and robert mueller and his team are going to want to know an awful lot about that. as we hear this other reporting today about questions that are being asked about what president trump knew relating to wikileaks

e-mails, hope hicks right there at his side throughout all of this is very likely to know what was happening, what president trump knew, when he knew it and what they were saying. and also what they were saying publicly about these things and whether those two things matched up. the statement about telling white lies i think also is a really interesting statement. we've all told white lies when our friend asked us, does this dress make me look fat? is that the kind of thing she's talking about or is it the kind of lie that can be a material misstatement, the kind of lie that is substantive that could be either obstruction of justice or a false statement to the fbi. that's going to be very important as well. >> chuck, it's donald trump so you never know which kind of white lie it was. l let me ask you the same question i asked barbara. what sort of witness, and rate her importance to bob mueller in terms of what caralo has described, what was described in "the new york times" that was the reason that he walked away from the trump legal effort, that there was this idea that hope hicks was saying to him

those e-mails will never get out, they'll either as barbara said, be destroyed or hidden or not revealed. that's not how it works when a special counsel is investigating your actions and activities of associates. >> that's right, nicolle. i may be a bit biased here because i worked with mark caralo and i have tremendous regard for him, his judgment and integrity. he obviously saw something that bugged him and it bugged him enough that he felt he had to get out of that situation, which i think is the right call. so, assuming mark has it right, hope hicks is a very important witness. you know, we keep talking, all of us keep talking as if mueller only has three cooperateers, the three who pled guilty, papadopoulos, flynn and now gates. actually he probably has dozens of cooperateers because it includes all of those who didn't plead guilty and are telling him the truth. i suspect that hope hicks, even if she told white lies to the press or to the president is smart enough and well prepared enough by her attorneys to tell the truth to bob mueller.

so, very important witness, as bob pointed out on a whole bunch of things, and particularly i think on the obstruction of justice episode that mark caralo described. >> i will reveal my bias for mark caralo as well. he has a job during the bush years of representing carl rove during the pat fitzgerald special counsel. i know for a fact he wouldn't have been scared away by the riggers of a special council investigation. he would have been, i would surmise, turned away by something unethical. so, i think that's why the hope hicks anecdote is so interesting in the context of what mark caralo can stomach. he can stomach a fight adds tough as anything that any press person has ever endured legally or politically. but i would believe him to be the kind of person who would never tell a white lie. so, can you talk about whether hope hicks might be someone that bob mueller wants to talk to again if she didn't, as you just

said, you know, perhaps give as full accounting -- we don't know, again, what she did or did not say to bob mueller. do you become a different kind of witness if you admit under oath that you tell lies? >> sure, you become a different kind of witness. but i am assuming here, nicolle, that bob mueller and his team are talking to important witnesses multiple times. i don't expect that a witness goes in one time and never again. so, for instance, witness nicolle wallace talks to bob mueller and his team, the team talks to ten other people who suggest a whole bunch of reasons why nicolle wallace ought to come back as a witness. i expect if they haven't talked to hope hicks multiple times, they will. she's obviously important, but she's one of many. >> eli, it seems like the president is starting to move people over to a reelection campaign. he announced the chairman yesterday. do you have any reporting or any reason to believe she wants to stay with this family, that

she'll land the campaign, or is she ready for a complete life-style change? >> i think she's ready for a lifetime change. coming out of the fashion p.r., the campaign catching fire, the next thing you know, you're asked to be white house communications director in the middle of an investigation by a special counsel. and you talked about caralo's experience being perhaps the reason that he knew better. he knew when he saw something amiss, to extricate himself from the situation. hope hicks, a lot of people who have dealt with her -- and i'm one of them -- would call her a quick study when it comes to politics, right. she didn't have the experience, but she learned how to survive. she learned you survive by placating the boss. and i don't think there are that many reporters who have dealt with her that were all that shocked when she said she's told white lies on his behalf because frankly with the view you get of this white house every day from talking to people, that is not a surprise. that is something most reporters know. it is a surprise to hear it out

loud. when you step back from all she's been through and all she had to deal with, this is not a person who came into this with those past experiences, had never been in politics before, on a campaign before, in the white house, in the cross hairs of a special counsel. and i think maybe she has figured out at this point that before she does any more damage to herself, she needs to extricate herself and make sure that she's okay legally. >> we don't know if she's in okay shape personally. she was at the center of the scandal that led to the news yesterday that jared kushner had been stripped of his security clearance. she was reportedly dating the individual who was accused by two previous wives of domestic abuse. and i wonder if this whole -- with the hope hicks story has in common with the -- we have five leads of the day, we rip them all up as the news tumbles out of this white house. news broke shortly after our hour yesterday, that at least four foreign governments thought they could manipulate jared kushner with the kinds of questions and conversations they were having with him about kushner family businesses.

and again, i put it to all of you, is it a question about naivete, is it a question about a culture of corruption? is it a question about the violent and ugly collision of both? >> hope had one of the hardest jobs working for president trump and candidate trump and before that real estate developer, self-promoter donald trump. i first met her when she was working for the trump organization as a spokeswoman for his properties. this is back in 2014. and she tried to convince me, no, no, no, donald trump really is serious about running for president. yeah, okay, thanks, hope. >> she was right. >> she was right, i was wrong. i'll admit it. she was more than that to trump. she was more than just a spokeswoman. she was a gate keeper to him. she was a translator. she channelled his voice. when she would release statements, you could -- verbatim you could almost hear trump dictating them to her at the top of his voice -- >> let me stop you. could that be why she's in legal trouble? >> it certainly is a question that a lot of people are going to start to raise.

what is her legal exposure? what has she told mueller? what has she told congress, perhaps, that has been contradictory, that has exposed her? i don't know the answer to that. i don't think any of us know the answer to that, but a departure under these circumstances with the cloud of this investigation hanging over this white house raises that very question. >> and this is the white house, we've over used the word disarray so i'm not going to use it. but this is white house literally crumbling under the weight of its own incompetence, its own inade background checks. the reason the background check process has been so cumbersome is they didn't bring in the people who are either easy to investigator quickly cleared from the simple question of, are you a blackmail threat or not. >> right. >> what does it say that people are dropping like flies? how does this white house replace its communications director, its staff secretary? there are rumors that members of the national security team may also be looking to the exit doors. how does this white house recruitpl up with

hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills? >> it's tough. i mean, look, if you think about the fact hope hicks got to this position, you know, white house communications director in the first place because of the rapid departure of other people, and here she is again, someone who just a couple years ago was doing fashion p.r. is suddenly in one of the most powerful positions in the federal government. it's really hard for this white house, both to attract talent, to get people to want to come work for them. it's very tough when there are people who have been offered to work for them. but have been rejected because during the campaign they said something not nice about donald trump, and he nixed that idea. and certainly now with a federal -- with a special counsel investigation looming over the whole thing, bringing quality talent in is going to be tougher than ever. >> can i raise one possibility something i heard from people close he to the white house, he

won won't fill these jobs. maybe eventually he will. who is going to want it? other than the speaker of the house, i can't think of a more undesirable job in washington, can you? i don' director. if you're donald trump, i don't know you need a communications director since you are your only communications director. >> and here is when you need them. heaven for bid we have another 9/11 and somebody has to go to the podium and tell what is happening. and that is a cabinet position for a reason and the cabinet has run amok and half of them are under investigation because the chief of staff is too busy pulling knives out of his own back. these are jobs for donald trump you become -- what is his name, ray cohn like figures and chase their tails and follow his tweets and responding to unbelievab unbelievabl unbelievable inquiry from the press. and are you suggesting none of the functions are fulfilled during the trump era. >> i don't think this trump

white house functions like any other white house we've seen before. the idea that certain functions that were essential is not surprising. >> we've seen it. jeb bush warned this could be a chaos president and that is what we are seeing. we don't even have time in the show to talk about the fact that ben carson spent taxpayer dollars on a $31,000 dining table. that is this presidency in a nutshell. there is too much. >> let me bring into the conversation new york times chief white house correspondent peter baker. big news, you are calling maggie haberman breaking it. any new details about hope hicks decision to resign today. >> well, look, this is obviously a big deal. it is a big deal because she is probably as close to the president as any aide you can imagine. she was the one that thought she would turn out the lights when they are done and his influence is understated by the straightforward title of communications director. she was at his side during the campaign and every minute of the last 13, 14 months.

and she has sort of a unique credibility with him in a way that almost every other aide didn't. they could come up and down and roller coaster in his eyes. she for the longest time enjoyed a special connection to him that allowed her to be -- to channel his interest and his desires and needs in terms of the media in terms of getting his message out. and i think he's going to miss her a lot. >> talk about how she wasn't around the rest of the white house staff. she's also i think the fifth communications director. he started and the position was unfilled and then -- mike dub key and then sean spicer and mooch did it for a minute and then is hope hicks the fourth. >> she was the fifth if you count jason miller who turned it down because of his own issues at that time. so in a way she's the fifth person to give the title. the next person is the sixth in

just 14 months. none of them has been able to last as long as you have, nicole. they don't have the staying power. but this is a tough job. you want to be communications director for the president of the united states who believes he is his own best commune -- communicator and take that as add it by 50 as reince priebus said. >> and i want to ask you about another part of her role, she's was also hissenabler. she doesn't go through the right channels -- i won't call them right because they were right to the president. but she didn't bring in a white house stenographer when is a way the interview with the new york times that goes on for 45 minutes would go down. you were the only one with a audio recording but she enabled him to have the kind of access to the press that other advisers were trying to cut off at more tumultuous times ever his presidency and you were in the room when he did things like

attack jeff sessions, which he now does all of the time. it is fairly a lead story any more. he drew a red line around his businesses in the mueller probe. she gave him what he wanted and what he wanted was access to the media. >> that is right. exactly. the one you're referring to is an interview last july and set up by hope with michael schmidt and myself, maggie was there in the white house briefing room and we arrive and hope said come along so it was the three of us going in for an interview. very much her arrangement. the reince priebus chief of staff didn't know and the rest of the staff didn't know and the only staff in the room was hope hicks. it was -- there was no stenographer and there was no formal interview but the president wanted to reach out and talk to reporters and she would make that happen and it didn't have a staffing process. it wasn't a big meeting or talking point developed or practice session or anything like that. so she was -- she was the one who tried to figure out how to

execute his desires to communicate with the outside world. that obviously aggravated other aides because she had that sort of special in with him that they didn't. and so sometimes there was friction there. but she was also very well respected by many people in the white house. there were these tribal rivalries and she did float above them partly because of her association with the president. >> natasha, we are getting more information about that -- that appearance that hope hicks had yesterday before the house intel committee. our christian welker is reporting that congressman pete king has told a story that -- that in the hearing hope asked to speak with her lawyers when congressman asked has donald trump told you to lie. she went out and came back in and said roughly, i have told white lies and gave them the example of saying the president is out of the office when he's really not. or that the president is delayed in traffic or can't make to --

it to a meeting when he doesn't want to go. they are pushing back on the kind of lies. in a criminal prosecution, perjury is perjury and if you lie about -- about anything to federal investigators, the act of lying is the crime. >> so something that chuck said earlier stuck with me. we're focusing so much on the people pleading guilty and who are actively cooperating with mueller and the fbi but mueller probably has dozens of people who has cooperating with the investigation. and that includes probably many of the people who have been rotating in and out of the white house since trump took office. now my question -- my biggest question coming out of this is how far will hope hicks' loyalty to the president go once she out of the white house. will the legal pressure be too much and will she ultimately talk to the fbi and tell them straightforwardly everything that she knows? did the pressure of the house intelligence committee interview get to her yesterday. i was told she was extremely nervous throughout the entire interview and she was very

shaken up by the fact that she was even there. so my biggest question coming out of this is how far will her loyalty go and how many other people who have left the white house are now talking to mueller about what they saw and experienced. >> is barbara mcquaid still with us. i think about the pardon of sheri sheriff arpaio not as deer -- dear to the president as hope hicks and is everyone on pardon alert. i understand it could be done but it is not typical. do you imagine a situation where the start starts pardoning people before they are charged with crimes. >> it could be done before you are charged. president nixan was pardoned before he was charged. any crime if you committed even if it is yet uncharged. can -- it could be politically and legally perilous because if it is done for an improper purchase to protect himself from testimony in an obstruction of justice case it could be further

evidence of obstruction of justice. so i think the president has to be very careful about issuing pardons with people that have information that could incriminate him. >> but check rosenberg, to play the devil's advocate, if the president wants to roll his dice on the republican congress of having his back and say, oh, they'll never vote to impeach me. they stomached my deficit-raising, busting tax hikes and they never attacked me for being a misogynist and don't want to hear from my more than a dozen accusers of sexual misconduct. >> so go ahead and roll the dice. and what barbara said and is right and it is this, the mere fact that pardoned someone, before or after they committed a crime, before or after they are convicted of it, doesn't mean that they won't be a witness against you. so let's say he pardons jared kushner, that didn't preclude robert mueller from putting curb -- curber into the grand

jury. so you can absolve them of crimes but not wipe away the fact they may be a witness against you. and if they commit another crime, perjury, you would have to pardon them again. >> kimberly. >> that is right. the pardon takes away the fifth amendment right to not testify and incriminate themselves and it will lead and assuredly to their compelled testimony and in think case with the president and it doesn't save them from any other crimes, state law or other things. so it is very complicated and complex. the issue of pardoning won't solve all of the president's problems. >> pete, complicated and complex, not donald trump's specialty. >> that's true. i would mention the part about the fifth amendment. if the purpose were to prevent people to testify, it is the on sit affect because you would there for not have any legal exposure and the prosecutor could force you to talk. look, these are complicated

things. he knows it is a politically explosive idea. he hasn't followed through on it and we don't know that he would but he likes the idea that can might happen because that could influence witnesses just on the idea. other presidents -- wouldn't contemplate because they knew it is politically damaging and this president doesn't care as much as about the conventional cases. >> we are out of time. my thanks to peter baker, bash wau mcquaid and kimberly and i'm nicolle wallace and now we have "mtp daily." >> in 2002 had karen hicks and karl rove both been gone, just after the first year of the bush white house, how would you have felt? >> the turn over with karen hughes, we had the opposite problem. >> everybody stayed too long. >> right. things weren't -- in all critics