russia as it pertains to this case? >> the prt believes very strongly there was no collusion between the trump campaign and russia. we're going to cooperate with the special counsel. >> so president trump told the new york times that robert mueller would be crossing a red line if he started to look into his personal finances. >> it's the first known instance of the special counsel demanding records directly related to president trump's businesses. we're going to talk to the reporter who was inside the oval office for that first conversation last summer and also broke yesterday's news. welcome to "morning joe." it's friday. what a long week. march 16th. >> you think it's been a long week? >> yes. >> i think we've been bored with the lack of news. have we seen each other since i

won the academy award? >> that movie -- >> y'all stop. >> are you in that movie? are you the fish? you're the fish, the creature from the black lagoon. >> that's who i was channelling. that was where i get my inspiration. >> you just lowered your seat. >> i did. you were like kareem up there, man. >> looking down on willie, i don't do well. >> so you know what we always do to celebrate like when we won the tonies in '74. life is -- >> oh, my god. >> we celebrate by doing what? we go to art museums. >> yes. >> huge art exhibit, people. >> and smoking cools. >> so last night we find this hot young artist. >> that's my mom. we had a beautiful opening and a

great turnout. my mother had her first show actually since the passing of my father which was pretty hard. there's her beautiful piece. donnie, thanks for coming. my mother kind of blew you off. ? it was incredible being there. >> he did not like you. >> she came over -- >> he was lovely to me. >> she sneered at me. >> she actually put her lip up. >> and she thought maybe i was associated with joe and i said no i'm a friend of mika's. she said what are you doing? i said i work with her. sometimes we're on tv and she goes, i don't watch that. she's so cute though. she's so cute. >> 86 years old. >> i love mika telling the stories of her childhood when she wanted to talk to her mom she had to wait for the pause of

the chain saw. >> and then she'd turn it back on again and not do it. >> but to imagine her in a studio with a steel chain saw revved up, carving these giant pieces of wood and where she finds them in these remote places. >> and there's willie and lewis. everybody was there. >> tom rogers. >> so that is the end of my sort of bender. my art bender after the academy awards. >> so we had an art bender last night. >> it was a little different. you have the velvet with the dogs playing cards and the clown? you've got some nice stuff. >> so we have national affairs analyst, donnie doytch is with us. and donnie is here despite being totally blown off last night. my mother was just horrible.

>> associate editor for the washington post is with us as well. next hour we're going to be joined by the attorney for stormy daniels. he says there are now several more women who have contacted him with similar stories including at least two who have nondisclosure agreements. plus, new developmentes about when the stormy daniels 60 minutes interview is set to air and it's going to air. all right. to the news now -- >> thank you for announcing that. >> it's going to air. they can't stop it. >> and now to the news. >> there's a date though. >> and it's going to reveal a lot. >> special counsel robert mueller appears to be getting one step closer to donald trump. >> mueller has subpoenaed the trump organization to turn over documents including some related to russia. according to two people briefed on the matter. the times reports the breadth of

the subpoena is not clear but word came as mueller appears to be broadening his inquiry of foreign money and how it may have played into the activities. the trump organization has typically complied and there was no indication the company planned to fight mr. mueller's order. i wouldn't do that. >> why would you fight it? because we even sow in the stormy daniels where they actually used sometimes the trump organization to move their lawyers, to get a lawyer -- i mean, that's actually a perfect example of how there really is no separation between donald trump, the trump organization and this campaign. >> yeah, i mean, look, as we all know, it's a mom and pop shop and the whole campaign was built around the trump organization. you can imagine the circumstances in which they still tried to fight the

subpoena, but to their credit they have basically taken the posture that they're going to cooperate with these investigations. and they've done that. >> and what donald trump said earlier, i mean, it was a completely different time. the mueller investigation moved. it's going at a very fast clip. overwhelming majority of americans trust what bob mueller is doing. more russians are going to be indicted. the president is not in a position to say i'm not going to comply with a subpoena. >> you have to believe that bob mueller has always been looking at the businesses. if you're talking about whether or not he bowed to russia in some way or he asked for help from russia, but also he had some business interest there. the trump organization was always going to play into this. >> i mean, what's everybody trying to figure out? the connection between vladimir

putin, donald trump. that obviously has nothing to do with beauty pageants. it's about business. >> let's go to the new york times reporter who broke this story. good to have you with us. what does this represent to you as you have reported on bob mueller right from the beginning. what step do you think this looks like? >> reporter: well, in some ways this is a normal investigative step. they're going to try and collect as much information as possible to make sure they turn over every rock. you have to remember a big fear of a special counsel is that they someday close up shop and information comes out that they miss. so they want to be as thorough as possible. they served these subpoenas, they come back with documents. it's our understanding there were many search terms in the subpoena and the trump organization now has to find, go through all of their documents to be responsive to it. this is e-mails, this is all sorts of things and give it back to them. i think at the end of the day the biggest takeaway that we have from this is that in the

final months of last year there was repeatedly the arguments from the president's lawyers that this was going to be over. it would be over by thanksgiving, it was going to be over by christmas and now here we are in march and something like this is coming out. so this investigation will certainly be around for several more months if not longer. >> it sounds like that was a bedtime story the president's lawyers were telling to make him feel better but it's going to continue for some time now. the trump organization as joe said, it's been at the middle of all of this and what business dealings he may have with russia. has that been a focus of bob mueller and just under the radar from some of the splashier head looi headlines? >> we know a lot about obstruction. we know about a lot of things that have gone in the white house that are being examined, the firing of comey, the

president's treatment of sessions, different threats about wanting to fire mueller, those things. we know a lot about that. we know a lot about meetings, about the don jr. meeting about other meeting trump associates tried to have with russians. and we know -- up until the story yesterday, if you talk to the president's lawyers they would say they knew of very few questions that have come up about the president's finances and very few requests, if any, for documents related to them. now, this is not related directly to the president's finances. it's not like they went -- we don't know if they asked directly about the president's bank account, but this is the thing that he obviously spent years working on and the center of his argument for why he should become president. it's something that he invested a lot of himself in and he's used his children to run and if you talk to folks there, it's an

organization where folks at the top are directly involved in a lot f things. you'll see that they -- that they are involved in a lot of the different entity there is. >> david, while we're talking about russia, let's look at the other story which is the headline of the washington post. let's get a quick look at the post. you know, david, it's been i know for everybody a little frustrating following donald trump's response from russia because you have the president's nonresponse verbally, but at the same time you've had going back a year you've had the vice president of the united states sounding like ronald reagan in 1982. very tough on russia. nikki haley, people were shocked by what she said this past week. they shouldn't be. she's been consistently tough against russia.

you've had mcmaster -- general mcmaster consistently being tough against russia. this seems to be -- yesterday seemed to be the moment when it all came together regardless of what the president is or is not saying. >> joe, you always have to wait and make sure that the rhetoric of one day is sustained into the next, but yes, it does seem as if -- as if a corner was turned in what the president himself was willing to say. he directly blamed the russians for poisoning this russian former spy who was living peacefully in salisbury england, poisoned with this terrible soviet era nerve agent. the unified response from britain, france, germany and the united states against russia, the decision by the trump administration to finally impose significant sanctions against the russians, not everything they can do but significant

sanctions, raising the cost to russia of its behavior, the possibility that there will be additional moves by all these parties to try to tighten the screws does say i think that we've entered a new phase in terms of holding putin accountable. as i wrote this morning this time putin may have gone too far. the actions are so outrageous it's triggered a response. >> i just don't understand it. again, even assuming the very worst of vladimir putin, i don't understand just how audacious this attack was and i'm not so sure what he expected to get out of it. again, attacking a fellow member of the u.n. security council on britain's soil. it's really remarkably short sided. >> it's way over the line even

for an ex- kgb officer to go out and do this kind of killing. again, we need to have more evidence to link this directly to putin but it's clear that this is a soviet era nerve agent. it is extraordinary. >> but even in the -- even during the soviet era, kgb agents were never so brash. i mean, i -- you know, they were, dare i say, conservative with a small c. they were never this audacious, were they? >> they were what they call wet jobs. there were fewer instances when intelligence defectors were killed. i took the transcript of megyn kelly's interview last week and i ran a little filter and i found that he used the phrase, so what 11 times.

11 times he says -- she'll say, you know, there's evidence that 13 russians were indicted and he'll say, so what? and again and again, and that's the person that we're dealing with, the person who's been in power 18 years. who has decided so what? >> but are there not ol garks around him that can apply some sort of pressure to him? >> so that's i think the question that the u.s., britain, france, germany and others should be thinking about very carefully now. how do you apply sufficient pressure to get him to change his behavior? this behavior is way over the line and it's got to stop. >> hey, michael schmidt, i want to go back to bob mueller and ask you about something that comes out of something you were just talking about a second ago. there's a theory of the case for people who were closing watching this investigation that if you think about as we long have, the investigation is proceeding on

two tracks. the track of obstruction of justice, the track of collusion, conspiracy, corruption that essentially mueller is done with the first track and that's what we're seeing right now is a shift away from the obstruction case. we've seen a lot -- you've known a lot about the details of that, that he's basically done without a part of the interview that he wants to do with trump and we know these lawyers who are specialists, and bank fraud and money laundering that this is now the focus that he's now on and that we are as you just said now looking at almost a whole new investigation that could play out as you suggested for months and months to come. >> well, we don't have obviously a lot of insight into mueller and how his operation works but through our reporting we've been able to understand that there are different parts of his house and they're able to do a lot of different things at the same time. there are investigators that have focused on the questions of

obstruction. there are investigators that have focused on collusion and others that have focused on finances. so these have all gone at the same time. they've moved together different prosecutors working on different things. i think these are things that have been running all along. on the obstruction side, there are only so many events to look at. the president has only been in office for so much time and they have gone through a lot of these things and spoken to a lot of the key players there. only a few of them left. jared kushner and the president being the two most prominent ones, but on the finances side, i think this is something that has proceeded very quietly under the radar and as it looks to ties to collusion and such, we just have not gotten a lot of insight into it. i think this is something that has been going on, but as they take more overt steps, if you go out and get a subpoena or if you were to do something even more

extreme and get a search warrant it bubbles up and comes out in the press. so i'm not sure this is new to what mueller is doing. >> thank you so much and from all that international intrigue now to the presidential porn star stormy. there are new developments. two sources tell the washington post that cbs will air her interview with anderson cooper on march 25th. meanwhile the lawyer representing the former porn star, michael avenatii says at least two of them have nondisclosure agreements but admits he has not yet vetted their stories to a great degree. the attorney also says he has not yet determined whether he intends to represent the other women. the white house has denied all allegations of affairs involving the president and michael avenatii will be our guest next

hour. >> we've been talking about this story for months and for whatever reason it couldn't get traction. it was overshadowed by russia and everything else going on. but because of the reports of the payment that michael cohen has admitted to making, he says it was his personal money, he was just casually paying off a porn star for some reason and this interview by 60 minutes. and they were just doing journalism and reporting this story out. what does this add up to for the president at the end of the day? >> i think not that much, actually. i think what's baked into his brand, obviously is we know he's a -- he's a philanderer. and unless there are some striking visuals. >> right. >> which i doubt, you know, donald trump does not send e-mails. i would be very surprised if we're going to see pictures of donald trump running around in a

sombrero and cowboy boots. i don't know why i went there. >> like donald trump half the things you say are confessional. you're either projecting or you're being confessional. >> i think this is candidly -- >> i can't get that out of my mind now. is this projection or concession? >> thank you for tuning in to "morning joe." >> i do think i want to step a little back to the mueller thing because we're still always bearing a lead. >> wait, you're actually -- mika gave you a chance to talk about stormy daniels and you want to go back to the independent counsel investigation. >> out of character. >> i don't know why she's wearing the little red riding hood outfit. >> what are we talking about? >> he's back to daniels. >> tell us about the mueller investigation. >> there was a tease on a show the other day where they showed stormy daniels --

>> we didn't see it. >> i'm trying to talk politics here. the mueller thing that we forget, 1992 donald trump went bankrupt. donald trump loves debt. i love debt, that's what he said. he's not been able to borrow money for 25 years. where is the money coming from? we can talk about collusion, we can talk about adoption, donald trump and dirty russian money and dirty foreign money over 25 years of business that will bring this president down. once he got to the trump organization, everything is going to fall and it has nothing to do with sombreros or cowboy boots. >> susan, i want to talk about the clrepublican party. i mean, these republicans who are following blindly along, do they not see that these are serious -- there's like four or five serious possibilities of this president being on the

wrong side of history. and what does this mean for the party? >> well, i actually this the party has their head in the sand because they think this is a donald trump problem. and nothing shows that more than what happened with the intel investigation allowing those two political memos to come out. to me that's when speaker ryan said i'm done leading this body, taking a stance. there's no republican in office who is willing to stand up to donald trump. >> wow. what -- >> and so again, we're talking about this is a -- an issue of character, but as i've been saying on this show, even if it's cold and calculated and calloused, i mean, donnie can tell you, the best brand that hasn't been used in american

politics today is the conservative that says you know what? i stood up against the accesses of barack obama, and i'm going to stand up against the excesses of donald trump. and oh, my god, that person -- i don't care what polls say and i'm sure you'd agree with me here. that person, if they do it forcefully owns 50% of -- of the republican elect rat in time. that is basically the loyal on sags. >> it is and for some reason they're afraid to speak up. they don't feel they can have the traction that they need and is it 50% or is it 45? >> it will be. >> and i agree, but they have to keep going and frankly, it's getting to be late. we're going into midterm elections. until someone starts speaking up and we see a candidate running

for president trump primary donald trump we're not going to see any real discussion. >> the woug post this morning, this is a quote. i believe this is george h.w. bush. >> john meacham, and this is what he said. the interview, i was going back to the interview this past week of the republican mayor who said -- >> a really, really good piece. >> who said i'm going to vote for conor lamb because we need to send a good man to washington. >> make america good again. >> make america good again which is the most compelling campaign slogan. >> trademark it. >> america is great because america is good and when america stops being good, america will no longer be great. this is what john meacham said.

that interview brought to mind the praise of george w.h. bush's live. more to reform than to revolution. more to the management of complex si than to the making of mass movements. bush's life code as he once put into a letter to his mother was, tell the truth. don't blame people. be strong. do your best. try hard. forgive, stay the course. >> joe, i wish i could -- >> and you look at the front page of the boston globe today and you look at these pictures of all the people that have quit already. >> and there's more to come apparently. >> this looks like water gate,

1974. this could be the front page of the washington post of the cast of characters that have -- are moving in and out of the white house. it is absolute chaos there. >> it's chaos. i found a quote from trump recently that shows that he delights in this. he's quoted as saying i like conflict. i like watching it. i like seeing it and i think it's the way to go. in other words, this daily circus of people getting fired, humiliated, this one is about to be fired. >> reality show. >> it's what the president wants. >> not good for the country. >> try hard. stay the course. >> it's interesting what you said about be good. let's make america good again. the important thing to put into the good where trump has twisted for people, people have mistaken him for strength. let's associate good and

strength. good can seem great. great is pounding your chest. good is actually stronger than great because it's solid and unexaggerated and joe, you just laid out, i wish i could have a candidate, i wish -- interesting a lot of the things that you talk about and your style, i know you're not running for office but if i had a candidate that had good plus strength -- >> right. >> done. >> and also we talk about good. i think it's also public service, it's putting the country first, not putting yourself first and that's what people are seeing in washington that have so frustrated. they see the president putting their priorities before the country. >> and by the way, i retweeted a tweet last night from the op ed editor from the new york post and now know what he was talking about? conservative guy. and he just said, you know what? i was fortunate to become a father in the middle of barack

obama's administration because of the example he set for me as a father and a family man and a human being. a guy who didn't agree probably with 10% of what barack obama said and yet, look at that example. and you have conservatives saying that now. it is -- the country's hungering for that person. >> still ahead on "morning joe." the ncaa college basketball tournament tipped off yesterday, but officials working in the white house are experiencing their own march madness. they have a bracket that they're filling out. which staffer will be fired next? we'll bring in one of the washington post reporters behind that nugget next on "morning joe." tomorrow, it's a day filled with promise and new beginnings, challenges and opportunities.

at ameriprise financial, we can't predict what tomorrow will bring. but our comprehensive approach to financial planning can help make sure you're prepared for what's expected and even what's not. and that kind of financial confidence can help you sleep better at night. with the right financial advisor, life can be brilliant. brushing only reaches 25% of your mouth. listerine® cleans virtually 100%.

helping to prevent gum disease and bad breath. never settle for 25%. always go for 100. bring out the bold™

so allstate is giving us money back on our bill. well, that seems fair. we didn't use it. wish we got money back on gym memberships. get money back hilarious. with claim-free rewards. switching to allstate is worth it. at&t gives you more for your thing. your me-time thing. that sunday night date night with hbo allllllll night thing. that island without men or children would be nice to visit thing. buy an at&t unlimited plan, and get hbo included. more for your thing that's our thing.

we've gotten to know a lot of people over the last year. i've been to washington for a little bit more of a year where some people have been here 30, 40 years. there will always be change but very little. there will always been change and i think you want to see change and we want to see change. >> the president got in the fight with shrubbery, but i'm all for st. patrick's day, but what is that? >> that's a nice salad. >> more changes could be coming to his administration. are you serious? these comments come as we learn new details on the heels of nbc's reporting from two weeks ago that general h.r. mcmaster is expected to be ousted as

national security advisor by the end of march. >> i know we're going to read this this story. trump decides to remove, there's always going to be change. there's this back and forth and i could be completely wrong here but reading between the lines and you look at one story after another, it looks like the chief of staff is leaking to reporters that mcmaster is on his way out and then the president of the united states is calling them in saying oh, wait, no, i like him. i like him. because you have -- what was it john roberts at fox coming out saying he is staying. he is staying. >> well, come on. >> the washington post is also reporting on the mood inside the white house in recent days saying it has quote, verged on mania as trump increasingly keeps his own counsel and senior aides struggle to determine between rumor and truth. they're anxious and nervous wondering what it may mean for

them personally. white house officials have begun betting about which staffer would be ousted next though few if any have much reliable information about what is going on. this literally sounds like the apprentice. joining us now -- >> that's what the president wants. >> one of the reporters of that piece -- all he knows how to do is produce reality shows. >> hi, phillip. >> there's a -- >> good morning. >> there's a war of leakers at the highest levels in the west wing. it appears that somebody is saying mcmaster is gone. somebody, lets's just say the chief of staff level or higher and somebody else is saying, no, he's staying. what are we poor consumers of news supposed to read through all of this? >> well, joe, it might be a little more simple than that. it might be that the president changes his mind and telling

people different things. my colleagues and i reported last night based on five sources with knowledge of this decision that president trump has been telling people in the white house that he has decided to remove h.r. mcmaster as the international security advisor. that doesn't mean mcmaster has been fired yet. the president's taking some time to execute the decision in part because he doesn't want to humiliate mcmaster and wants to have a replacement lined up to succeed him. after our reporting was published came the tweet from press secretary sarah sanders who pushed back, but she did not explicitly deny what we have reported, that a decision had been made in the mind of the president and what we're hearing from sources is that the president's telling different people different things and different senior officials have different interpretations of where mcmaster stands at this hour. >> and jon, perhaps the president -- he's never really gotten mcmaster. we heard the first week or so

that mcmaster was there he, you know, the general had the audacity to give him more than a one page memo and not to speak in a quick sound byte and so the president never really got it. >> phil and his colleagues have an incredibly well sourced piece last night but the wall street journal reported the same thing. so the weight of the reporting suggests this is true. i just find it hilarious, this notion reflecting the thinking of the president that he doesn't want to humiliate mcmaster. if he didn't want to humiliate him he would replace him in a crisp clean way. instead he's got him out there twisting in the wind with conflicting reports and sarah sanders on twitter saying no. this is the most humility you could go through, the twisting

in the wind and lack of clarity where you think your job is blowing hither and yon throughout the white house. >> and the general doesn't seem really to be phased by it. he wants his forward star but also gives him the opportunity to speak out as aggressively as he wants on russia or any other topic that matters to him. >> i think it does bother him, joe, getting battered like this. he's been subject to a campaign of leaks by steve bannon supporters, other -- other critics going back for a year and it takes its toll. h.r. mcmaster to his credit keeps trying to say ma he really thinks. i saw him in munich two weeks ago where he just flat out said that russian behavior was inexcusable, contradicted the president's line at the time that was much less critical and

you could almost sense this feeling that mcmaster had. i'm going to tell the truth the way i see it no matter what. but the idea that this is not humiliating for a man who's served his country in difficult places now for decades, it's really humiliating. >> i think it's also very dangerous. senator said president trump has an unconventional management style. >> he has no management style. we keep forgetting he's not run anything. he's never hired or fired an executive in his life. you know, am ros is one of his more senior executives so beyond the incredible insight that he changes his mind which is probably pretty simply stated, this is a guy, phil, who never ever beyond his mind that's all over the place has any

understanding, has any touch in terms of management, in terms of firing, in terms of hiring, in terms of staggi -- staffing. >> he -- you know, don't have a big management background in terms of running the government and managing other principals but he's been president for 14 months and he's telling them i'm going to hire and fire as i choose. he has a gut sense of what he thinks of all these cabinet secretaries. there are a number that he likes, especially steve mnuchin but they're certainly on thin ice right now including and at the top of that list would be david shulkin. >> if you read the reporting there are so many echos of rex tiller and that it's almost

purely personal. that he didn't like rex tillerson because he thought he was condescending. these are men with expertise and the president doesn't like being explained to. >> he doesn't like receiving that expertise. >> can i say one thing, a normal administration and i know this is the least normal administration we've covered. we just announced we're going to have a summit between the president and kim jong-un on nuclear weapons. since then the secretary of state has been fired and the national security advisor seems to be hanging by a thread. in what sense does it mean to take to fire them in the five or six week window before a supposed summit to take place with kim jong-un? >> that's been part of the defense that the president wants to get his team in place. >> let's not forget when donald

trump announced his team, there were four people that everyone was really happy with. mattis mcmaster, kelly and tillerson and everyone said that's a team that we can trust. so we won't judge too harshly. he's gotten rid of 50% of that team. >> this is not casting. this is a cabinet. >> this is not casting. this is frightening and your piece in this is not a fire drill in the woug post is the first thing that i've read that gives me hope we're going to be okay because it is such a scary time when you really think about this. it's not funny. >> but if you look at his foreign policy team -- >> it's frightening. >> i know we have to go but the reck setear secretary of defense as well as the incoming secretary of state, if mike pompeo gets past confirmation, those are two people the president does have

confidence in and are they not on somewhat firmer ground than these other people we've been mentioning? >> it's clear that pompeo and trump have a uniquely good relationship in terms of this administration. every president need to have a secretary of state that speaks for him and pompeo might be that person. i worry a little bit about general mattis. outstanding commander, a person who's run the pentagon well. does he feel his connection with the president and decisions has been diminished by the firing of his close friend and ally, rex tillerson. that's something we need to watch closely. >> thank you for your reporting. coming up, the former fbi director is waiting to learn if he'll be able to retire with his pension or if he'll have to retire without it. meanwhile his former boss, james

comey who was definitely fired is set to get his revenge. new reporting on that ahead on "morning joe."

you can't predict the market, but through good times and bad at t. rowe price we've helped our investors stay confident for over 80 years. call us or your advisor. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. bp's natural gas teams use smart app technology to share data from any well instantly. so they can analyze trends and stop potential problems in their tracks. because safety is never being satisfied and always working to be better. when did you see the sign? when i needed to jumpstart sales. build attendance for an event. help people find their way. fastsigns designed new directional signage. and got them back on track. get started at fastsigns.com. stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man.

start winning today. book now at lq.com

does the president feel he

should act by friday to fire mccabe. >> we do think it is well document had he has had troubling behavior and by most accounts a bad actor and should have some calls for concern but that would be a determination that doj would have to make. >> bad actor, by the way, was key in the boston marathon bombing investigation. was key -- he was a member of the swat team, new york fbi, he's a guy that was put in charge of high valued interrogati interrogation. i mean, this guy has been a hero. >> yeah. >> a law enforcement hero. he also helped land the arrest of a key figure in the conspiracy in benghazi and for

some white house flak to say that a hero of law enforcement is a quote, bad actor is a disgrace to every man and woman that wears the uniform, a disgrace to every agent in the nib, and susan, really quickly, because alex is just going to scream at me. but going to you, this is jeff sessions' moment, isn't it? to show what side he's on. >> and what's right and what's good for this country and he can totally rehabilitate himself in his image of being for donald trump. if he stands up to the president and does the right thing. >> he's done that actually once before in a really big way. and that is, you know, he recused himself and he's paid for it ever since because jeff sessions whether you agree with him or not, that is a point he did the right thing and now, what a message he would send to the law enforcement community and to fbi agents that are out

there. by the way, i have to remind everybody of this, those men and women, this morning they're waking up and they're trying to stop your mall from being blown up. they're trying to stop your airplane from being blown up. they're trying to stop your children's school from being blown up. those fbi agents wake up every morning and go to bed every night worried about how they are protecting you at home and the white house is denigrating the entire fbi. >> in that same press conference they called putin a bad actor. that's who this white house is comparing this hero to. >> and sarah huckabay sanders has an opportunity to be a good person. she'll never take it. and nikki haley is not sucking up to president in in way.

listen to her on russia. listen to her making a stand for the right thing. sarah hauckabay sanders, how ca you do this when you know saying. you know every word you're saying is wrong and that you're not being a good person and you're not being a good person. you're not. >> we're going to read about that this weekend. go ahead, willie. >> let's bring in co-founder of axi axios, mike allen. you have exclusive new reporting on former fbi director james comey that has to do with the rollout of his new book. >> willie, it's been ten months since director comey has been fired and he's been thinking and as mika said he's going to get his revenge. 32 days from now his book is out. "a higher loyalty." that's a play on the president's statement to him when the president said "i demand loyalty, i expect loyalty." director comey coming up with "a higher loyalty" from flatiron

books. we're told he's going to come out hot. we're told he's going to break some china on a book tour across the country coast to coast. we're told that he has been toting up what he thinks are lies and misstatements about the fbi and he's going to correct them, james comey served three presidents -- george w. bush, barack obama, donald trump. we're told he's going to compare the ethics of the first two to the third. more contrast, in this case, a big theme on this tour is going to be ethical behavior in public life and public business and we're told that as he goes across the country he's going to directly go to where critics are, he's happy to take on critics. >> so he obviously was a villain to trump supporters, the president fired him. but before that he was a villain to hillary clinton supporters, viewed by many of them as putting out that memo and that letter as perhaps costing her the presidency.

is he going to speak to his role about the outcome of the presidential election? >> we don't have specifics of what's in the book. what i do know is that james comey, who has a cinematic eye as we know from his earlier memos, he has other memos from his time in public life that he's drawn on so he had an eye, an ear, a memory for scenes and so we can expect to see and hear more of what it's like alone with these three presidents. >> one of my favorite memos starts "it was a dark and stormy night." very cinematic. >> mike allen, thank you. >> happy weekend. >> wait, where's your happy friday? >> happy friday and happy st. patrick's eve. >> on monday we'll see mike on "morning joe" first look right before "morning joe" to kick off a new segment "one big thing" previewing axios' big scoop of the day. >> this is exciting. >> that will be every morning at 5:55 eastern time leading into

"morning joe." we're very excited. >> i gave you the cowboy boots and the sombrero. >> that was not a big thing. >> by the way, mika -- what mika said about nikki haley, boom, she really did. >> i want to say one thing about this james comey thing. right now in our politics we have donald trump and bob mueller, the two collossi -- >> i like how you pleuralized that. >> but james comey has been off the stage for a year nursing these grudges, nursing his enmity for donald trump. he's the guy whose firing got mueller hired is going to move into a two on one situation where bob mueller who doesn't speak investigating trump, you have comey coming out being trump's main public foe. >> i have to say, though, they may be friends but their styles -- >> totally different.

i still am trying to figure out what james comey was thinking. >> i don't disagree. >> you either indict somebody or don't and if you don't, shut your mouth because you didn't have a probable cause so just sit down and shut up. >> i don't disagree. and a lot of clinton fans will be right with you on that. i'm saying right now you'll have this big loud voice making the arguments people assume bob mueller is pursuing in the investigation in private. >> the only thing i would say is i don't think bob mueller wants to be associated with that drama. >> agreed. >> david ignatius, susan del percio, thank you very much. good to have you on. >> david, thank you so much. we have a big week next week. isn't that when we have the crown prince of saudi arabia coming? >> he is coming to washington and we're trying to see if his brother the ambassador will spend a little bit of his

morning with us, talk about the visit. >> that would be amazing. david, thank you. coming up, a major development in the stormy daniels scandal. now intersecting with the russia investigation. msnbc chief legal correspondent ari melber joins us to connect the dots. plus, the attorney for stormy daniels michael avenatti will be our guest. "morning joe" is coming right back. liberty mutual stood with me when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night. hold on dad... liberty did what? yeah, liberty mutual 24-hour roadside assistance

helped him to fix his flat so he could get home safely. my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. don't worry - i know what a lug wrench is, dad. is this a lug wrench? maybe? you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. spring clearance event'. the dual adjustability of the sleep number bed allows each of you to adjust to your ideal level of firmness, comfort and support... your sleep number setting... for your best. sleep. ever. in the morning, you'll discover the amazing effects the bed is having on your sleep quality... your sleepiq score. and snoring? does your bed do that? only at a sleep number store, where queen mattresses start at just $899. and, it's the last chance for clearance savings

up to $600. plus, free home delivery on most beds. ends monday. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you. we the people... are defined by the things we share. and the ones we love.

who never stop wondering what we'll do or where we'll go next. we the people who are better together than we are alone... are unstoppable. welcome to the entirely new expedition.

daniels. >> is putin a friend or foe of the united states? >> russia has to make that determination and decide whether they want to be a good actor or bad actor. you can see from the actions we've taken to this point we'll be tough on russia until they decide to change their behavior. >> welcome back to "morning joe." >> it's friday march 16. >> i'm collecting academy awards, going to art shows, i don't have time to follow hoops.

a lot of those games going on on the television box. >> stop. >> i saw lebron last night. >> oh, my god. that dunk. >> one of the most dominant -- >> do we have that? we don't the dunk. >> what happened to sports highlights? lebron james had perhaps the most vicious dunk of his career last night in portland, cavaliers lost the game. they've been struggling a little bit this year but he continues to play, i think he's 15 years in the league at the highest level he's ever played. playing team ball, scoring a lot. you'll see he committed a basketball murder on some guy in the blazers. >> those college kids, the youngsters are playing. alabama one? >> roll tide. colin sexton going to be a pick. your point guard. >> wow, good job. >> we have to see the replay. >> it's just vicious. >> john heilemann and donny deutsch are still with us. >> for better or for worse.

>> and joining the conversation, msnbc chief legal correspondent and host of "the beat" on msnbc where everything happens, ari melberg. >> great name for a show. >> former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama and msnbc contributor joyce vance. former justice department spokesperson now an msnbc justice and security analyst matthew miller is with us as well. >> matthew, let me start with you quickly. >> why not? >> for front page of the "washington post," i have it somewhere here but i can't finds it. i'm going to -- thank you, willie. new sanctions on russia, they're significant sanctions, aren't they? isn't this what people have been waiting for trump administration to do for some time? >> they have been. i think these sanctions are important but by themselves they're not sufficient. there are two categories, one are sanctions against the same people that mueller indicted for the social media activity in the middle of the election. if there was probable cause to

indict -- enough evidence to indict those people for a crime there's obviously more than enough evidence to sanction them. others where people involved with the russian intelligence agencies we know participated in the hacking. these are the bare minimum of sanctions. these are not sanctions with real teeth that get close to putin's inner circle so we need to wait and see if they're going to be serious. they may look at additional sanctions so let's see if we get close to the oligarchs if they talk about putin's own assets before we give them a passing grade here. >> let's go to the lead in the "new york times," look at the front page of the "new york times," mueller demands trump company surrender its files, investigation nears president. that's michael schmidt and maggie haberman. ari, what's the impact of that development in the mueller investigation? >> well, i think the impact is significant because in a criminal investigation you don't just vacuum up, ask for, or

subpoena anything. you subpoena things that you think are relevant to the crimes you're probing and we have never -- i know there's been a lot of mueller news -- we have never seen a report about a direct subpoena hitting the trump organization so it tells us, number one, bob mueller thinks there are things there that could be relevant to the probe, that there are things relating to russia or the other items under investigation that involve the trump kpaenl and ux two, he's not doing this in a low key way and saying send it over, he's doing in the an aggressive way saying you have an illegal criminal organization and anyone in trump org to from the lowest i.t. person to the highest attorney can be exposed if they don't cooperate. >> donald trump said before it was just sort of one of these off the top of his head interviews he doze from time to time in his office but he said before that this would be crossing a red line. let's play the clip of that for

you really quickly. >> mueller was looking at your finances and your family's finances unrelated to russia. is that a red line? >> that would be a breach of what his actual charge is? >> i would say yes. >> what would you do? >> i can't answer that question because i don't think it's going to happen. >> joyce, if donnie deutch is right and nothing comes from the stormy daniels investigation lawsuit, whatever it is, the one thing we have found, though, is that this trump organization is so closely connected to everything, michael cohen gets a california lawyer at the trump organization, why did he do that? because that trump organization is really impossible to separate from donald trump, from the family and even the campaign. so there is no red line, is there, joyce? donald trump has to comply and everybody associated with him has to comply, don't they? >> that's absolutely right.

we're a rule of law country and what that means is that no person in the united states or abroad is above the law when u.s. law applies. the president is not above the law. he doesn't get to say here's a red line, you can't investigate my personal finances, any more than any other defendant or witness or target in any criminal case could say that. >> and joyce, as you're building the case, his finances are actually at the center of the investigation because we have a lot of people not only in journalism but also on the hill and also in this investigation trying to figure out the connection between donald trump, the trump organization, vladimir putin and how it may have affected his actions in 2015 and 2016. >> what's the president's connectivity with russia and does the financial relationship help explain the alleged

political involvement? this is what mueller has to look at. it's his primary core mission here. >> matthew miller, what does it look to you like now? we have this progression of how we can watch from the outside with our faces up against the window, not totally know what's going on with the mueller investigation but getting these bread crumbs and clues. what does it look like to you? how is he prosecuting this case as you watch it go step by step? >> it's a great question. one of the things that surprised me about the story yesterday was the timing. i would have expected mueller to have sent this subpoena six months ago and the fact that he just sent in the the past several weeks suggests to me one of two things. one, that he received documents previously and didn't think he got all the documents, he's had new information that leads him to believe the trump organization held something back so he hit them with a subpoena or he's taking the investigation in a new direction because he's found evidence of new potential crimes and he's sending new subpoenas involving new areas. and i think to get to your big question, what we've seen him is

build i building criminal cases against people at all level of the trump world. the trump political world and the entire trump orbit. when you do that. you flip people and get new evidence and you find out things you didn't know you needed to investigate so when you think about -- michael flynn has been cooperating from four months now. we have no idea what he's told bob mueller. same with rick gates, we have no idea what he's told them. we should expect new lines on investigation based on new witnesses. >> that silence would keep you awake at night, wouldn't it, donny? >> sure would. we analyze mueller's strategy and he's going about his business in an intelligent legal way. we haven't talked about donald trump. how he's not going to play by the rules. take me through the legal calculus where he subpoenas things in the trump organization and trump goes, sorry. because that's what trump will do. we haven't got on the the red

line yet so what are the options if trump says guess what, i'm the president, i'm the president, sue me. >> the lawful option is always to argue bark about something being overbroad and that can be legitimate. which is saying you're asking for too much, too broadly, fishing expedition and you can go to a court and argue over the breadth of a subpoena and that's -- as boring and technical as it sounds but doesn't involve defiance it involves working within the system. i think the key point about any orders that donald trump or anyone else tries to give that are unlawful and we've seen this played out with don mcgahn in the efforts to remove mr. mueller are that other people have different exposure. in other words, when you're dog do something criminal in the middle of an investigation. whether you're a civilian or lawyer, you have to think about what's good for you and the point just raised on this show that other people have been busted and had to pay for lawyer fees, mortgage their homes,

plead guilty, cooperate, is a clear public example to other people when you have to make that call so if donald trump or anyone on his behalf says destroy evidence or hold back something that should go, those people have to this that through and the best legal advice is to comply, not commit a new crime in the middle of a probe. >> don't commit a new crime. rick gates did that and it didn't help him out when he was supposed to proffer testimony, again, john heilemann, it's what i talk about, the curt flood rule which is if you have somebody that wants to be a free agent and you're major league baseball, you don't challenge curt flood because you know he will win in court and then everybody -- the last thing donald trump's lawyers want him to do is challenge a subpoena, have bob mueller try to compel, take it all the way up to the supreme court, the supreme court rules in bob mueller's favor, which they would, and then donald trump is going to have to comply then.

your don't want to put yourself in a position where you're richard nixon and the supreme court is demanding you turn over the tapes. the first time he does that, that then sends a message that bob mueller can take everything up to the supreme court when and that ends up -- i mean ultimately it opens up how the supreme court might even respond on whether a president can be indicted which is still an open question. >> right. and i think the question i want to ask matt miller and ari both about this, the big thing that's still hanging out there as this investigation both in some respects their ro s narrows aro obstruction of justice claims and expands on the corruption conspiracy. i'll ask joyce. the big questions hanging out there is the question of donald trump -- still the ongoing negotiations of donald trump going in for an interview, to sit down with bob mueller. so just to connect these dots, joyce, as joe just suggested,

what would nap a scenario where ultimately these negotiations fall apart and there are no terms under which the president agrees willingly to go in and sit with bob mueller? what happens then? is that a scenario that plays out to the supreme court? and i'll go further, what happens in the court tells donald trump he must sit with mueller and donald trump says no? >> mueller has the subpoena power, he could bring trump in front of his grand jury using a subpoena, it's a little unusual for the justice department to subpoena someone who is a target of an investigation, someone the prosecutors are thinking seriously about indicted. it ee it's more common for sun who is a subject and more proper for a witness. that can be used if the president won't agree to be interviewed and mueller will have -- because we're a rule of

law country and the president isn't above the law -- mueller will have the same power of compulsion that he would have with any other witness who doesn't appear in front of a grand jury which is to call the u.s. marshal and ask them to deliver the witness for testimony. >> there's another legal twist in the stormy daniels scandal that's colliding with a lawsuit brought by donald trump's lawyer and, to some extent, the russia investigation. trump's personal lawyer michael cohen sued buzzfeed for defamation after it published the steel dossier that claimed in august of 2016 cohen attended a meeting in prague to "clean up the mess of reports involving russia." now lawyers for buzzfeed have sent this letter to ty cobb, the president's lawyer at the white house. the letter asks him to preserve all documents regarding cohen's work with the campaign and any documents cohen may have provided to special counsel robert mueller and congress as it relates to his libel lawsuit.

it also pushes to preserve all communications between cohen and the president as well as cohen and stephanie clifford, a.k.a. porn star stormy daniels. also, all communications between cohen and karen mcdougal, the former playboy playmate who was also allegedly paid to keep quiet about an alleged affair with donald trump. here ee's buzzfeed on with ari t night connecting the dots. >> michael cohen's lawsuit is based on a part of the dossier that says he was sent by the trump campaign and the dossier uses the words "to clean up the mess" the trump campaign made and that is the type of allegation that we're having examples of with the stormy daniels allegations and what we're looking for is to know what it was mr. cohen did for the trump campaign because it would help us in our defense of the libel litigation. >> can't you win your case and defeat michael cohen's case about defamation without getting

into stormy daniels and karen mcdougal? >> sure, but in -- obviously in federal discovery and discovery in american litigation you have an enormously broad scope. in fact, in defamation cases you have an unusually broad scope because you're talking about the reputation of a single person. >> ari, what do you make of the interview you conducted last night? were you able to clean more advancemented to the story? >> this was fascinating. i spoke to trump white house lawyer ty cobb about it last night. he told me it was the first he was hearing about it but the white house would do the right thing and comply. that means if they go forward, any information on cohen they've give on the mueller or about these women, mcdougal and stormy daniels, would end up in this civil lawsuit. so the big picture here even if you put aside the little details is michael cohen was mad at buzzfe buzzfeed, he went after them,

that's recent, now what he did is going and boomeranging and hitting his boss donald trump in the white house and stirring up a all kinds of stuff the white house doesn't want to talk about let alone provide in open court so i would sum it up as -- there's a saying in hip-hop, you played yourself. dj kaled. so he may have boomeranged a big fight this morning. >> ari melber, thank you very much. >> willie, what do you think about the reference? >> i think big daddy kane was saying that before dj kaled was even around. >> you just smoked ari. >> you can't smoke ari on hip-hop. >> i feel smoked, willie. >> matt miller, thank you as well. joyce vance, stay with us, if you can, because we want to bring you in in just a moment to react to our next interview. >> willie geist, the epitome of public enemy.

>> the lawyer representing former porn star stormy daniels in her battle against president trump joins us here on set next on "morning joe."

you know what's awesome? gig-speed internet. you know what's not awesome? when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone.

now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. joining us now, michael avenatti, the lawyer representing stormy daniels whose real name is stephanie clifford. thank you for joining us. good to have you on the show. >> thanks for having me. >> first of all, the appearance on "60 minutes" will happen, correct? as far as you know. >> we hope so. i think the "washington post" reported late yesterday it's slated for the 25th which is a week from this sunday. >> have there been attempts to try and thwart that? >> we're not aware of specific attempts but we've heard through the grapevine it's been contemplated, i don't know that we're out of the woods yet. we'll wait and see what the next eight days bring.

>> what is it that your client wants? what is the story she feels is important? >> we've been clear for some time now that miss clifford wants a forum, a platform in which she can tell her story unrestrained, can tell the american people the truth about what happened, not just about the relationship with the president but also about the attempts by the president and mr. cohen to muzzle her and prevent her from telling her story. >> those attempts include a $130,000 payment to silence her? >> well, they include the $130,000 payment but they certainly did not end there. >> i'm curious about $130,000. that's a strange amount. i've talked to women who have signed ndas and seen them from the company perspective throughout my career for different reasons and it's a strange number. it usually is much higher for everybody someone with far less of a financial fortune. what did that cover, exactly?

where did that number come from? >> i think once my client is permitted the opportunity to provide her story, that it's going to become apparent as to how that number was arrived at. i agree with you it's a low number and it flies in the face of accusations by people that somehow she was trying to shake down then presidential candidate donald trump and i think once she's able to held her story and the american people can gauge her veracity people will come away impressed by her and with no doubt she is very, very credible. >> is there a reason for the number that we will find out? does it cover costs of something? . it's a strange number. it doesn't make sense. >> i agree with you it's a strange number and once she is permitted to speak people will discover why. >> did someone else offer her $130,000? >> no. >> >> there are others, apparently. >> we've talked about for weeks

that it would be odd and perhaps defy belief that an attorney would unilaterally offer to pay personally $130,000 to a woman without first consulting his client. do you have any doubt in your mind that president trump himself directed that payment to your client? >> none. >> i'm curious as an attorney, just following up on that, have you ever, like, fronted one of your clients $50,000? because i was an attorney for a couple years -- >> even 50 bucks. i have a lawyer. i can't get my lawyer to lay out a hundred bucks for me. >> you say you have no doubt. do you have proof that that happened? >> i'm not going to get into the evidence we have. we have obviously not laid out all the evidence in the complaint we filed. we would be foolish to do so. no good attorney would do that. we have a substantial amount of evidence and facts supporting the allegations in the complaint. you described mr. cohen's assertion relating to

the int$130,000 as odd. i'll describe it as ludicrous, preposterous, ridiculous without any basis in fact. it's unheard of and when it's said and done we'll get to the bottom of it and prove -- prove -- to the american people that it's nonsense. >> is it fair to say you're not going to get into the evidence here, i understand that. but fair to say that your belief the president directed this payment is based on more than a hunch? >> yes. >> john? >> one more question. do you -- does miss daniels have physical documentations of her alleged relationship with president trump. >> i'm not going to answer that. >> do you get into that in the "60 minutes" interview? >> i'm not going to answer that. >> we'll have to watch and see. >> yes. >> isn't it in the pleadings, though? >> what? >> physical evidence, texts, pictures, videos, et cetera, et cetera. >> there's a reference in that to the agreement attached to the pleading. >> so two different lines of inquiry. the first is related to the new

women who have come forward and approached you. you said there were six who came forward. obviously interesting there the sense that we're interested in the president's behavior before he became president but in what way does that -- how does that play into the case that you're trying to play out here? >> well, i don't know that it does and i want to be really clear about something. we've been approached by six separate women who tell six stories. we have not vetted those stories, we are in the very preliminary stages of determining the veracity of those stories. we haven't determined whether we're going to represent them. we are at the early stages and i want to preach caution which i have done for weeks now in connection with this case because it's very, very important that we don't get over the tips of our skis in connection with this. this needs to be a measured, thoughtful approach. that's what we're doing. >> taking that point on board and asking this in a cautious way, they're similar in the

respects that you have six women -- unvetted, you don't know if they're telling the truth -- but have said, a, they had some kind of sexual relationship with the current president of the united states? >> yes. >> and b that they have confidentiality agreements that keep them from speaking? >> at least two of them. but people can claim all kinds of things and when there is a situation like this, there is a tendency by people to come forward and make up a lot of nonsense and i don't know whether these women are telling the truth or not because we haven't vetted them yet so we're not going to take our reputation behind them. what i will say is this -- there is no doubt, zero doubt, that my client miss clifford is telling the truth, that she's honest and credible otherwise i wouldn't be sitting here right now. >> let me ask you one other question, the second line i wanted to get to which is the buzzfeed case, the buzzfeed claim yesterday obviously related to your client in terms of what they're claiming. what do you make of that claim? is it sound? a, sound, and, b, helpful or

harm to feel your client's position? >> i'm not going to opine as to the claim because i haven't studied the claim. what i would say is i think the connection to our case and miss daniels is attenuated at best. i think too much is being made out of it and that's all i'll say. >> so you would not take on a client or case like this without unequivocal proof? >> what i'm going to -- yeah, i'll answer that in the affirmative. yes. >> so proof of a sexual relationship between stormy daniels and donald trump. >> i don't think i understand the question. >> you would not take on a case like this unless there was proof between stormy daniels and donald trump and that they tried to silence her about it? >> correct. >> will there be revelations in the "60 minutes" interview? >> no doubt. >> i was going to say of course there are, mika, it's "60 minutes." >> just to rehash -- just like -- oh, you know -- >> you offered to return the

$130,000 to trump's attorneys as part of an agreement where you could disclose the relationship. they missed a deadline you set up for them. you wrote in a tweet "time to buckle up." what did you mean? >> what i meant is that we're going prepare for full blown bit negotiation and we'll be measured, aggressive, thoughtful, smart, and we'll see this to the end, we won't be intimidated. we're not packing up and going home. this isn't about a two-week splash. we're in for the long haul. we'll get to the bottom of this and ensure the american people learn the truth about what happened here. she'll tell her story and we are going to get to the bottom of this $130,000 payment. >> what is there about the relationship, though, that americans should know about? >> why is it important? >> there are a lot of people that may be saying this is a consensual relationship between

two adults and why go to war over that? >> i think a lot of that will become apparent in the interview and i won't disclose what the interview contains at this point. >> but there is more than just a -- there's more than just the consensual relationship she wants to tell the country about? >> there's the act and the coverup and the american people are going to learn about both in the interview and beyond. >> michael avenatti, thank you. >> that's a deep tease right there. >> march 25. >> i know where i'll be that night. >> was she threatened in any way? >> yes. >> was she threatened physical harm? >> yes. >> oh, wow. >> keep going, mika. >> we started the tease and you just -- >> was her life threatened. >> again, i won't answer that. people will have to tune in to "60 minutes." >> now we're back to the deep

tease. >> so now you're looking for les moonves. >> there's obviously so much more here. >> so what can you tell us about the threats? the physical threats. >> i can't tell you anything beyond what i've already said. again -- >> can you tell us whether it came from the president directly, the physical threats? >> i won't answer that. >> will you deny the president of the united states threatened your client. >> i will not confirm or deny. >> will you confirm or deny that in a "60 minutes" interview? >> i think it will become apparent to people when they tune into "60 minutes" on march 25 and the american people can judge for themselves on who is telling the truth and not and, again, we're not trying to silence anyone. we want both sides to lay out their version of the facts so the american people can decide for themselves what happened. >> let me ask one more question about the threat. does the threat emanate from one of the parties to the agreement or someone associated to the parties to the agreement? >> i'm not at liberty to discuss

that. >> yes/no question. was the threat verbal. >> well, you can't say yes or no. >> i'm not at liberty. >> did anyone point a gun at her? >> i'm not at liberty to discuss it. you can ask it 17 different ways, i'll give you the same answer. i applaud your tenaciousness. >> you've seen the cartoons where they drop a grand piano on somebody's head from the 30,000 floor. >> this is serious. stop. >> you were asking. he's not going to answer that question. >> well, i'm curious. >> but i asked him if the president of the united states threatened her, he said i'm not going to confirm or deny. as the lawyer on the simpson would say "so you're telling me he did." >> mika is hoping for a moment of aphagia. >> this is deadly serious. >> your client operating under the assumption that the non-disclosure agreement is invalid because david dennison didn't sign it? >> i'm not at liberty to disclose why she believes she's

able to talk to "60 minutes." i think when people tune into "60 minutes," they'll learn a lot of the details and the answers to the questions you've asked. >> is she breaking the non-disclosure agreement by sitting down with "60 minutes"? >> i can't opine on that. >> thank you for being on. >> thank you. >> thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. there's not a lot you can say right now -- >> there was a little bit. >> but a lot was said there that somebody threatened your client. still ahead, we'll bring back in former u.s. attorney joyce vance to react to this, plus the white house's go-to for whenever the president makes a questionable comment "he was just joking." we'll have the latest example involving japan ahead on "morning joe." >> that the bowling ball test? how do you win at business?

stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com

so we know how to cover almost we've anything.st everything even a "red-hot mascot." [mascot] hey-oooo! whoop, whoop! [crowd 1] hey, you're on fire! [mascot] you bet i am! [crowd 2] dude, you're on fire!

[mascot] oh, yeah! [crowd 3] no, you're on fire! look behind you. [mascot] i'm cool. i'm cool. [burke] that's one way to fire up the crowd. but we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

so we just spoke to stormy daniels' attorney michael avnetty. >> and things got a little -- >> as we were going to break because he wasn't -- obviously he couldn't answer several

questions. mika asked if stormy daniels, his client, stephanie clifford, was threatened by the president or anybody in the president's organization, physically threatened to remain silent and he said yes. let's bring back in now former u.s. attorney joyce vance. the information is going to come out about this physical threat and there are going to be quite a few details about it, joyce. what are the implications? >> you know, this is something of a bombshell, joe, this idea that someone physically threatened her could possibly be a crime so it may be she now feels like she can discuss details if perhaps she's reported a crime to police and there's going top some sort of ongoing criminal investigation into whoever threatened her.

but this will also in many ways influence the judge who ultimately hear this is case, of course, a judge in california will have to decide if the nda is valid. >> if she signed an nda and then the attorney comes forward with evidence that either the president of the united states or somebody closely associated with the president doing the president's bidding, somebody that worked for the president several years went to her and physically threatened her and said physical harm would come of her if she did not remain silent -- >> or sign. >> -- doesn't that almost compel the judge to waive the nda and move forward and let this testimony come out and possibly criminal proceedings? >> one of the reasons that ndas can be invalid is if one of the

parties is coerced into signing. so if she signs under a threat of physical force, that could invalidate it. but we don't see that pled in the complaint that's been filed? >> what if the threat came after she signed the nda? >> that's a little bit different of a situation. it could be, difference, a separate crime, it could mean, however, that the nda isn't valid because it's against public policy. this sort of nebulous doctrine. a lot of law school 101 ideas wrapped up in this. at the end of the day, an nda is a private contract between the parties and if she's willing to pay whatever damages she's required to pay in the contract, i think it's a million dollars every time she talks, she can talk away as long as she's willing to run that risk that she'll be forced to pay the fine. so what is the crime? what would the specific crime be in your jurisdiction if either

donald trump or somebody closely associated with donald trump went to stormy daniels, stephanie clifford and said if you talk you will be physically harmed? >> it will depend on where they were, what jurisdiction they were in when the threat was made. it could be something that doesn't rise to the level of criminal conduct. but for instance the worst-case scenario, if someone held a gun to her head, that would be some form of assault or threat using a weapon in any jurisdiction in this country so it will depend very much on the specific facts. >> joe, is it fair to say, legal aside, if stormy daniels comes out and says she was physically -- let's say that again, fizzedly threatened arm by either the president himself or somebody close, that -- and it seems to be credible, that in and of itself would bring down this presidency with what is

going on in the world right now. >> i don't know. hard to say. >> no. >> think about what -- >> it depends on whether republicans -- >> if there is proof of that. >> but step back, we're not watching a movie. it's stunning. what happened here 15 minutes ago is nothing short of stunning and -- >> it changes the dynamic. >> i'm surprised that he did answer that question but obviously in doing that, that had to be, willie, something at the heart of her more allegations and one of the reasons why she's so insistent on coming forward now because either donald trump or somebody closely to donald trump physically threatened her and told her to be quiet or else harm would come to her. >> first thing's first. it's an allegation from the attorney for stormy daniels but i suspect based on the way he answered our questions or didn't

we may hear more a week from sunday on "60 minutes" and he says there is documentation that will be revealed in that interview. but i think donny when you talk about the things baked into president trump, we don't like it but it's a fact of life that people know these things about donald trump already in terms of the relationships he's had and that won't shock people but if what michael avenatti said is true about a physical threat, whatever that means -- >> i want to hear that again. >> that has to change the calculus for some people. >> we're going replay it. we're cutting it. i want to make sure how the threat was characterized. >> i think you want to because one of the things i tried to clarify is i asked whether the threat was issued by a party to or someone associated with a party to the contract of the non-disclosure. this doesn't take away anything from what he said but i think what he tried to do there was say she was threatened but did not specify that it was -- that the threat came from donald

trump or associates of donald trump. now that obviously is the implication that someone either around michael cohen, around donald trump, that someone in that universe but i think he tried to steer clear of saying that directly and all he left it at was there was a physical threat brought to bear on her by someone. >> and that's why this is important because not to be -- to try to say this carefully, we're talking about this president, president trump, who's very -- vocal about his conquests with women or whatever you want to call it throughout his entire career and a porn star who sex is a part of her career so what would the sex be? why that would be a story at this point? i think what we're looking another now is what happened after and whether or not she was threatened by the president of the united states. >> i will say this, though. going back to bill clinton.

there were so many times when either bill clinton or people associated with bill clinton would come to the hill and testify and not tell the truth. so much so that everybody would laugh and that was baked into the cake, bill clinton didn't tell the truth. i've said it many times, one of the big scandals was the transfer of missile technology to china because bill clinton wanted to reward, it seemed, one of his financial -- the biggest contributors. but it wasn't until the monica lewinsky scandal dropped and americans had something in their face that story that people paid attention. i was saying at the time -- let me finish, please. i personally was saying at the time that i found it maddening that americans were focusing on this story but didn't give a dam that the president was

transferring secret missile technology to china through one of his top contributors when the pentagon told him not to do it, when his military people told him not to do it but he did it any way and they lied about it. so i think this is concrete and that's why this story even though we should be more concerned about russia, americans will pay more attention to this. >> but here's the other thing. just remember the context. the "access hollywood" tape comes out and in the week to ten days after that you have more than a dozen women who accuse donald trump of sexual harassment or sexual assault. this case is floating around in that period, the stormy daniels accusation, right? and then suddenly there's a -- an agreement struck. a scenario in which she was essentially forced into an agreement where she's silenced

in the last two weeks of a presidential campaign because she had a credible accusation where the candidate thought that this accusation coming out could stop him from winning the presidency and where she not only has s paid off but, again, if you take the implication, what's suggested here by the attorney, mr. avenatti, the notion possibly that she was not just paid off but was essentially forced to take the payment and was told to take the money and shut up or she would be physically harmed, that in the last two weeks of a presidential campaign where the stakes are who is going to win the presidency when donald trump is facing multiple allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment, that's a gargantuan story. again, i'm obviously speculating here but this is the time frame in which it took place. this is the time frame in which the agreement was struck so if some of these details are borne out, what he seems to be suggesting, we have a gargantuan

piece of history here on the line. >> and all i will say is just to clarify this just a bit. mika and i have reason to believe that it may be somebody closely associated. >> -- we've heard about. >> -- closely associated with the president so this is not some supporter -- >> we've heard of a pattern like this that we've seen never sourss but being close to tsours -- close to the inner trump circumstance. >> this will bring down this presidency. this is physical harm to a woman. this is not sex, this is not groping. >> you said something before about how it was baked into the cake. >> that's different. >> i remember when the "access hollywood" tape came out and everybody said that was the end. i remember you and i having the discussion saying it's baked into the cake. this is a guy that went on howard stern and said things equally offensive and said that he wanted to have sex with

princess diana and wished he had because of her skin. if america heard him say he had to slap women around or treat them badly -- you can list the things he said on the howard stern show, that was baked into the cake. is this different? i think it is. what do you think? >> this is apples and oranges. if anything in a twisted way the president or a man's potency and conquests of women add to his bravado and his strength. there's a huge difference between being a womanizer and harassing women, physically threatening -- >> i want to hear what he said. this is just eight seconds long but i just want to clarify exactly what was said. take a look.

>> was she threatened in any way? >> yes. >> was she threatened physical harm? >> yes. >> oh, wow. >> joyce -- >> that was a pretty clear yes. >> -- again, what are your thoughts? >> it could not have been any clearer. she was threatened. that story will have to come out, i couldn't agree more strongly the context, on the eve of the election wrap this is up inextricably with political events. it could easily be his downfall. >> totally agree. >> joyce, thank you so much. we'll replay that interview with michael avenatti ahead, including the key portion about the physical threat that stormy daniels says she endured following her alleged relationship with the president. >> we'll be right back. >> was she threatened in any way? >> yes. >> was she threatened physical harm? >> yes. >> oh, wow.

♪ "glorious" by (speaking in french) ♪ this is what our version of financial planning looks like. tomorrow is important, but this officially completes his education. spend your life living. find an advisor at northwesternmutual.com.

why is dark magic so spell-bindingly good? it's a bold blend of coffee with rich flavors of uganda, sumatra, colombia and other parts of south america. like these mountains, each amazing on their own. but together? magical. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters. with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis? how do you chase what you love do what i did. ask your doctor about humira. it's proven to help relieve pain and protect joints from further irreversible damage in many adults. humira works by targeting and helping to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. humira has been clinically studied for over 20 years. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure.

before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. ready for a new chapter? talk to your rheumatologist about humira. this is humira at work. more and more people are finding themselves in a chevrolet for the first time. trying something new can be exciting. empowering. downright exhilarating. see for yourself why chevrolet is the most awarded and fastest growing brand, the last four years overall. switch into a new chevy now. current qualified competitive owners and lessees can get this 2018 chevy equinox for around $199 a month. chevrolet. find new roads.

was she threatened in any

way? >> kyes. >> was she threatened physical harm? >> yes. >> still ahead, we'll play much more from our interview with the attorney for stormy daniels who told us just moments ago that his clipent was threatened physical larm. t harm. we're back live in three minutes. ♪ oh, look... another anti-wrinkle cream in no hurry to make anything happen. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair® works in just one week.

with the fastest retinol formula available. it's clinically proven to work on fine lines and wrinkles. one week? that definitely works! rapid wrinkle repair®. and for dark spots, rapid tone repair. neutrogena®. see what's possible. bp is taking safety glasses to a whole new level. using augmented reality so engineers in the field can share data and get expert backup in the blink of an eye. because safety is never being satisfied and always working to be better. who's the new guy? they call him the whisperer. the whisperer? why do they call him the whisperer? he talks to planes. he talks to planes. watch this.

hey watson, what's avionics telling you? maintenance records and performance data suggest replacing capacitor c4. not bad. what's with the coffee maker? sorry. we are not on speaking terms.

what's with the coffee maker? at&t gives you more for your thing. your me-time thing. that sunday night date night with hbo allllllll night thing. that island without men or children would be nice to visit thing. buy an at&t unlimited plan, and get hbo included. more for your thing that's our thing. welcome back. it is friday, march 16.

here now is that -- okay, we're going to talk first. >> here now is willie geist talking about the interview. >> i'm still trying to process this. >> michael avenatti was here about 20 minutes ago and we'll play a bunch of the interview i know. the headline of course is mika's direct question about whether or not his client stormy daniels was ever threatened in the course of all this. he said yes. and she asked physically and he said yes. wouldn't get anymore detailed than that, but said yes pretty affirmatively that she was threatened. >> i made this point before and i think it is important to stress that we went a little further with him and asked him whether that the threat emanated from anybody who was a party to the contract which would be michael cohen or donald trump or anyone who was closely affiliated with them and he would not answer that question. now, people will draw inferences about who might be the person who threatened her, but he was

very careful to say that there was a threat, say that there was a physical threat, but not to point any fingers directly at donald trump or his associates. again, we can speculate, but he did not say that on the air. >> also figuring out about what was said, what was not said and what you can reasonably infer from the pleadings and everything else that has gone down. i think you can reasonably infer that the threat was not in the final two weeks of the campaign, the threat was not before the nda was signed. >> that may be right. >> because if the threat were -- happened before the nda and compelled the nda, that would be in the pleadings. and that would be a very simple thing to plead and be a very simple thing for a judge to rule on. >> he would invalidate the nda on that basis, right. >> so i think again as far as

the assumptions go, we don't know exactly who it is. >> we don't know exactly when. >> and we don't know exactly when it is. but it is just drawing upon not only the interview, but also from the news and the time line this -- it seems that the threat actually was after the nda, after the election, and when she first emerged sort of coming forward in news stories recently. >> let's play this out. let's say it is an inner circle person, not a donor in oklahoma, somebody that a name that we're very familiar with that even if it is not donald trump -- >> one that comes to my mind. >> yeah. who he has had some inner circle people who function in a certain way -- >> by the way, let's stop right now and be very careful -- >> we don't know anything. >> we know nothing. but don't -- as far as who it may or may not be, let's not -- >> if it is a name we've become

familiar with who is in any way close to donald trump, and it seems credible that there has been a physical threat, play that out. play that out. >> it's over. >> play that out. once again, i don't know who it is, but i'm not talking about it is joe wilbur, but, oh, a trumpian person. >> somebody in the inner circle for a while. so let's play that out. what is the impact of that? >> first i would -- one step back even more broadly. this again is an allegation. >> an attorney on with an allegation. >> the burden of proof will be on him and his client to prove what he said this morning actually took place and maybe he will present that in that "60 minutes" interview. but as i said before and we've been talk about for a long time now, it is donny's baked in the cake theory which is that sexual escapades, allegations of sexual assault even that we heard leading up to the allegation in 2016, are in some way as bad as this sounds baked in the cake for donald trump. they think that is part of who he is and what he does. but this is something different

entirely ifs allegati the alleg true and it can be proven by mr. avenatti and stormy daniels. if there was a threat, the alleged threat, and you can find that it was endorsed in some way by the sitting president of the united states, now we have an entirely different story. >> yeah. >> final thoughts? >> all i'll say, i would be very careful again about saying that -- again, there are an awful lot of women out there whose view is that there are victims of sexual assault who would say that the sexual assaults that they suffered are not that different, in some ways are worse than the threats of this kind. so i don't want to like try to say, well, this is worse than that. it is all pretty bad. >> i wasn't saying that at all. >> i'm not being critical. just saying all of these behaviors are pretty horrible. but this is potentially -- if it was someone close to donald trump threatening this woman to keep her sigh leptexcellent, th

political consequences could be significant. >> that's what i went into what i did about bill clinton because again, there is -- nobody is saying one thing is worse than another. we're talking about the political impact of the allegations and then the political impacts of tallegatios against bill clinton and then the investigation and then what ultimately comes out later on. >> and i didn't mean to suggest that in any way that one was worse than the other. my only point is that for people who heard all these sexual assault allegations of leading up to the allegation and still voted for donald trump clearly that was -- >> and i was not being critical. i just think that you can't stress those points enough. >> okay. in a moment, we're going to bring in legal scholar jonathan turley. but first, we want to play for you our full interview with the lawyer representing stormy daniels from moments ago on "morning joe." and the key moment comes toward the very end. take a look.

>> joining us now, michael avenatti, the lawyer representing stormy daniels whose real name is stephanie clifford. >> thanks for having me. >> first of all, the appearance on "60 minutes" will happen, correct, as far as you know? >> well, we certainly hope so. i think the "washington post" reported late yesterday that it is now slated for the 25th, which is a week from this sunday. >> have there been attempts to try to thwart that? >> we're not aware of specific attempts, but we've heard through the grapevine and others that it has been contemplated. i don't know that we're out of the woods yet. i think we'll wait and see what the next eight days brings. >> what is it that your client wants? what is the story that she feels compelled to tell? >> well, we've been clear for some time now that miss clifford wants a platform in which she can tell her story unrestrained, can tell the american people the

truth about what happened, not just about the relationship with the president, but also about the attempts by the president and mr. cohen to muzzle her. and prevent her from telling her story. >> those attempts claude $130,000 payment to silence her? >> well, they include the $130,000 payment, but they also did not end there. >> so i'm curious about $130,000. that is a strange amount. i've talked to women who have signed ndas and seen them from the company perspective throughout my career for different reasons, and it is a strange number. it usually is much higher for even someone with far less of a financial fortune. what did that cover exactly, where did that number come from? >> well, i think once my client is permitted the opportunity to provide her story, that it will become apparent as to how that number was arrived at. i agree it is a very low number and i think it flies in the face

of accusations by people that somehow she was trying to shake down then presidential candidate trump. and i think once she is able to tell her story and the american people can gauge her veracity, people are going to come away very impressed by her and they will come away with no doubt that she is very, very credible. >> is there is a reason for the number that we will find out? i mean, does it cover costs of something? it is a strange number. it doesn't make any sense. >> i agree with you that it is a strange number and i think again once she is permitted to speak, people are going to -- >> it will make sense. >> did someone else offer her $130,000? >> no. >> there are others apparently. >> we've talked about now for weeks that it would be odd and perhaps defy belief that an attorney would unilaterally offer to pay personally $130,000 to a woman without first consulting his client. do you have any doubt in your

mind that president trump himself directed that payment to your client? >> none. >> i'm just curious, as an attorney, following up on that, have you ever funded one of your clients $50,000, $75,000? because there was an attorney for a -- >> i have a lawyer, i can't get my lawyer to lay out 100 bucks for me. >> you say you have no doubt. do you have proof that that happened? >> i won't get into the evidence that we have. we obviously have not laid out all the evidence in the complaint that we filed. we would be foolish to do so. no good attorney would ever do that. we have a substantial amount of evidence, substantial amount of facts supporting the allegations in the complaint. you described mr. cohen's assertion relating to the $130,000 as odd. i'll describe it as ludicrous, preposterous, ridiculous, without any basis in fact. it is unheard of. and when it is all said and done, we're going to get to the bottom of it and we'll prove -- prove -- to the american people

that it is nonsense. >> but it is fair to say you you won't get into the evidence here, i understand that, but fair to say that your belief that the president directed this payment is based on more than a hunch? >> yes. >> sdw midoes miss daniels have physical documentation of her alleged relationship with donald trump. >> >> i'm not going to answer that. >> do you get in to that with the "60 minutes" interview? >> i'm not going to answer that. >> we'll have to watch. >> yes. >> isn't it in the pleadings? the physical evidence. >> there is a reference to that in the agreement which is attached to the pleading. >> so first related to the new women who have come forward and approached you. you said there were six who have come forward. obviously interesting in the sense that we're interested in the president's behavior before he became president, but in what way does that -- how does that play into the actual case that you are trying to play out here?

>> well, i don't know that it does. and i want to be really, really clear about something. we've been approached by six separate women who tell six stories. we have not vetted those stories. we are in the very preliminary stages of determinings veracity of those stories. we haven't determined whether we're going to represents them. we are at the very, very early stages. i a want to preach caution which i have done for weeks now in connection with this case. because it is very, very important that we don't get over the tips of our skis in connection with this. this needs to be a measured, thoughtful approach and that is what we're doing. >> taking that point on board and asking this in a cautious way, they are similar in the respects that you have six women -- again, unvetseunvetted have said that they had some kind of sexual relationship with the president trump? >> yes. >> and that they have confidential agreements that keep them from speaking?

>> at least on ttwo of them. but again, people can claim anything. and when there is a situation like this, there is a tendency by people to come forward and make up a lot of nonsense. and i don't know whether these women are telling the truth or not because we haven't vetted them yet. and so we're not going to stake our reputation behind them. what i will say is this, there is no doubt, zero doubt, that my client miss clifford is telling the truth, that she is honest and credible. otherwise i wouldn't be sitting here right now. >> one other question, which is the buzzfeed claim yesterday. obviously related to your client in terms of what they are claiming. what do you make of that claim? is it sound and helpful or harmful to your client's position? >> i'm not going to opine as to on the claim because i haven't studied the cliaim. what i would say is i think the connection to our case in his daniels is attenuated at best.

i think too much is being made out of it and that is all i'm going to say. >> so you would not take on a client or a case without unequivocal proof? >> what i'm going to -- i'll answer that in the affirmative, yes. >> so proof of a sexual relationship between stormy daniels and donald trump? >> i don't think i understand the question. >> you would not take on a case like this unless there was proof that there was a sexual relationship between stormy daniels and donald trump and that they tried to silence her about it? >> correct. >> will there be revelations in the "60 minutes" interview? >> no doubt. >> i was going to say, of course there are. >> well, sometimes it is like -- >> just to rehash, you offered to return the $130,000 to trump's attorneys as part of an agreement where you could disclose publicly the relationship. they missed a deadline to do that that you set out for them. you wrote in a tweet this week, quote, time to buckle up. what did you mean by that? >> well, what i meant by that is that we're now going to prepare

for full blown litigation and we'll be measured, aggressive, thoughtful, smart, and we're going to see this to the end. we're not going to be in-tinl da intimidat intimidated, this isn't a betwetwo week splash. we're in for the long haul. we'll get to the bottom of this and ensure that the american people learn the truth about what happened here. she will tell her story, and we're going to get to the bottom of this $130,000 payment. >> so what is there about the relationship though that americans should know about? because there are a lot of people that may be saying this is a consensual relationship between two adults and why go to war over that. >> i think a lot of that will become apparent in the interview and i won't disclose what the interview contains at this point, but -- >> but there is more than just a

consensual relationship here that she wants to tell the country about? >> there is the act and there is the coverup. and the american people are going to learn about both in the interview and beyond. >> michael avenatti, thank you. >> that is a deep tease right there. >> that is. march 25th. >> i know where i'll be that night. >> was she threatened in any way? >> yes. >> was she threatened physical harm? >> yes. >> keep going, mika. we started the tease and you just -- >> what do you mean by that, was her life threatened? >> again, i won't answer that. people have to tune into "60 minutes." >> so now we're back to the big tease. >> obviously so much more here. >> so what can you tell us about the threats, the physical threats? >> i can't tell you anything beyond what i've already said. again, i -- >> you can tell us whether it

came from the president directly? >> i'm not going to answer that. >> will you deny that the president of the united states threatened your client? >> i will not confirm or deny. >> will you confirm or deny that in the "60 minutes" interview? >> again i think it will become apparent to people when they tune in on march 25 as to the details relating to the threat and the american people can judge for themselves on who is telling the truth and who is not telling the troouruth. and we want both sides to lay out their version of the facts so the american people can decide for themselves what happened. >> so the threat -- does the threat emanate from one of the parties in the agreement? >> i'm not at liberty to discuss that. >> was the threat verbal? >> he can't say. >> again, i'm not at liberty to discuss that. you can ask it 17 different way, i'm going to give you the same

answer. >> you've seen the cartoons where they drop a grand piano on somebody's head. >> serious, stop. >> no, you were asking -- he's not going to answer that question. >> curious. >> he said he won't confirm or deny that. and so -- >> mika is hoping for a moment of like where the truth just tumbles out. >> is your client operating under the assumption that the non-disclosure agreement is invalid? >> i'm not at liberty to disclose why she believes she is able to talk to "60 minutes." again when people tune in, they will learn a lot of the details and the answers to the questions that you've asked. >> but is she breaking the non-disclosure agreement by sitting down with "60 minutes"? >> i can't opine on that. >> thank you for coming on. >> thank you.

>> thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. there is not a lot that you can say right now, but a lot was said there, that somebody threatened your client. joining us now, law plof professor at george washington university, jonathan turley. >> you know michael, don't you? >> yeah, he was my former research assistant at george washington. >> so tell us about type of attorney he is. >> oh, he's a terrific attorney, he was a terrific student. he has the perfect mix of skills. he is highly intel against, highly aggressive, also highly professional. and so he is the type of guy you want in your corner when things get rough. >> do you think that he would go the air and say something like what we just saw without credible evidence? >> no, the might have been and he will like and he will michat

make allegations that he can't back up. he knows this isn't his first fight. he was in litigation with me as a student. he's been a very successful lawyer. he is not someone that is given to fwbravado or reckless commen. >> sometimes when a lawyer or anybody who is asked a very difficult question, not only the responsibility, but the tone and his demeanor in his response when mika said was she threatened and without blinking, with just the most serious authority his answer was yes. so in knowing him personally, does that jive up with everything that you just said? >> right. michael -- in these types of fight, you want an attorney whose pulse rate won't rise when people threaten his client or try to get into a fight. michael is that type of guy. he is very level headed. he doesn't spook. but he is also a very, very good lawyer.

he was a terrific law student. not just with me but with many of my colleagues. >> and so here is the exact -- questions and answers here. mika, because storm ay daniels any way? yes. was some he threatened physical harm, he said yes. >> and do those two answers, it doesn't leave any wiggle room a attorney specifically michael avenatti would say publicly without documentation or proof? >> well, i can't speak to any attorney, but the michael i know would not make that allegation without having proof. it is a very serious allegation. you know, i suppose it was inevitable it was the one area of the criminal code we haven't triggered yet. >> i was going to --

>> that just -- dangerous species violations is the only thing not alleged. >> how does this change the dynamic? >> it changes it a great deal. a lot of this will depend on details. first of all, when the threat was made. if it was made before she signed the agreement, that would seriously undermine the agreement. there would be an argument of coercion or on threat. those are classic reasons why courts will toss out contracts or agreements of this kind. if it occurred after she signed, many courts would say, well, that doesn't necessarily mean that the agreement is invalid. but there is also another element here that as you have an agreement that is highly questionable, i mean this is not exactly the best legal work i've seen coming from the president's counsel, mr. cohen, and so you're asking a judge to walk down the road with you pretty far in opposing a gag order on a

matter of great public policy or public interest. so when you throw in the mix the possibility that one of the signatories was threatened, even after the agreement, that is not going help you with that judge. but it is going to be quite important as to whether the threat preceded the signature. if it was something that occurred afterwards, many courts will say, well, that didn't necessarily undermine the agreement, but it may cause other legal issues. the other thing that i think the president's council is likely to raise is, well, if someone threatened you, why didn't you get a restraining order, why don't you get one now since you were planning to have a "60 minutes" interview. and i think you will see some of those questions being raised after your interview. >> maybe she did. >> and just staying with the question about the interview, assuming that cbs doesn't change its plans about what it will air a week from sunday, you as an

attorney, as a professor, someone who knows michael avenatti, when you sit down to watch that interview, what are the key elements you'll be watching for to instruct you about what is important and what will unfold in this case? >> well, as a threshold matter i will be looking for the circumstances under which she signed. whether there is a clear basis to view this agreement as invalid. michael truly and clearly believes that this agreement is invalid. so we'll be looking for that. obviously the second issue is going to be any object tip ive forensic proof she might have in support of her allegations of this relationship. as we've talked about before, this can become an existential threat for the president if he is questioned about it. he can go from a john edwards problem which is a campaign finance problem and have it become a bill clinton problem if he gives false statements in an

interview. since he has not been interviewed by mueller, this is hardly good news. obviously mueller will be looking at any possibility inth someone close to the president had used a threat of physical harm. so the stakes are obviously growing for the president. now, having said that, we still don't know many details as to when this threat occurred, who made it, under what circumstances. and we may learn that from 60 minu minutes. >> jonathan turley, stay with us. president trump would likely have welcomed a different story to knock off the headline from the "new york times" that bob mueller has subpoenaed his company's business records. but the story just broke here on "morning joe," probably not what he was hoping for. we'll talk more about both straight ahead on "morning joe." was she threatened in any way? >> yes. >> was she threatened physical harm? >> yes. oh, not so fast, carl. ♪

oh no. schwab, again? index investing for that low? that's three times less than fidelity... ...and four times less than vanguard. what's next, no minimums? ...no minimums. schwab has lowered the cost of investing again. introducing the lowest cost index funds in the industry with no minimums. i bet they're calling about the schwab news. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management. here's the story of green mountain coffee roasters sumatra reserve. let's go to sumatra. the coffee here is amazing. because the volcanic soil is amazing. so we give farmers like win more plants. to grow more delicious coffee. which helps provide for win's family. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters.

you wto progress.move. to not just accept what you see, but imagine something new. at invisalign®, we use the most advanced teeth straightening technology to help you find the next amazing version of yourself. it's time to unleash your secret weapon. it's there, right under your nose. get to your best smile up to 50% faster. visit invisalign.com to get started today. at bp, everyone on an offshore rig depends on one another. that's why entire teams train together in simulators, to know exactly what to do before they have to do it. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.

. suspect robert mueller appears to be getting one step closer to president donald trump. the "new york times" is reporting that mueller subpoenaed the trump organization in recent weeks to turn over documents some related to russia according to two people briefed on the matter before the "times" reports that the breadth of the subpoena is not clear, but word of it came as mueller appears to be broadening his injury to exam the role foreign money may have played in funding mr. trump's political activities. now, you will remember last summer president trump suggested mueller could be crossing the red line by investigating his business records. and speaking of that, jonathan turley says poll for tesch shans seem to be drawing red lines -- drawing the red lines the way tornados are drawn to motor homes and the results are just about the same. we'll be reading from his new column and bring in our legal panel next on a very eventful

morning.

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'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in, i literally say, ahh. introducing the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. the leesa mattress is designed to provide strong support, relieve pressure and optimize airflow to keep you cool. today is gonna be great. read our reviews then try the leesa mattress in your own home. experience the leesa difference before you buy, at any west elm. or go to buyleesa.com and get $100 off. and free shipping too. fire fighting is a very dangerous profession. we have one to two fires a day and when you respond together and you put your lives on the line, you do have to surround yourself with experts. and for us the expert in gas and electric is pg&e. we run about 2,500/2,800 fire calls a year

and on almost every one of those calls pg&e is responding to that call as well. and so when we show up to a fire and pg&e shows up with us it makes a tremendous team during a moment of crisis. i rely on them, the firefighters in this department rely on them, and so we have to practice safety everyday. utilizing pg&e's talent and expertise in that area trains our firefighters on the gas or electric aspect of a fire and when we have an emergency situation we are going to be much more skilled and prepared to mitigate that emergency for all concerned. the things we do every single day that puts ourselves in harm's way, and to have a partner that is so skilled at what they do is indispensable, and i couldn't ask for a better partner. we're following the breaking news this morning, jonathan turley is still with us. he has forthcoming piece for the

hill that looks at donald trump's red line problem with robert mueller. also joining us now, foreign u.s. attorney barbara mcquaid is back with us. and also cat sunsteen, his new book is an edited collection of essays entitled can it happen here. and in it, he answers that question off the bat. writing, absolutely. it has happened before. it will happen again. to many americans, something like it is happening now. >> so thank you for being here. we need about three more hours because i would like to talk about star wars for the first two hours. but very quickly just because mika wants to know, we've been talking about the last jedi, where do you come down on how it stands? >> authoritarianism did prevail, it did happen there is a long time ago. in terms of the quality of the movie, it is good.

it doesn't have lucas' magic exactly, but it is a step forward and it propels the plot a novel positive directions. >> you've lost me at it's good. now back to authoritarianism. >> you thought it was great. >> she did. no, my sons and i thought it was great. everybody else disagrees. so can it happen here. let's talk about it. you answer the question it has, it can again. and has there always been an undercurrent of let's say a third of the population, i was reading a story a couple days ago, now maybe 40% of younger americans who want a strong authoritarian leader? >> well, i'd say in the form fascism, hitler, that won't happen. but if abridgement of civil right, civil liberty, things that mean people's privacy is invaded, that has happened

before. japanese during world war 2, supreme of speech have been envaded. so things that are pretty bad have been part of our history. they look a little like science fiction in receipt row spekw sp. you can want a strong leader without thinking that you want authoritarianism. so i take the kind of ambiguous embrace of democracy apparently by some young people as not a favoring of authoritarianism. >> right. there are some polls of it who had specific questions about do you believe that we should have a stronger leader that is not held in check by congress or if congress and the president are ineffective, can the military step in. and the numbers i guess -- are the numbers higher now than they have been in the past? >> they are, but you can see that as expressive rather than a reflective judgment let the president do whatever he wants. you can see it as statement of frustration of paralysis or inaction. that is how i'd like to see it.

>> let's talk about context believely. you said it has happened before. so often in the 24/7 news cycle and with donald trump actually throwing tweets left and right and distractions left and right, sometimes we forget that it has happened before. put in context where we are today compared to where we were in world war ii with japanese american internment or civil war where abraham lyincoln. >> i think we're in better context now the withstanding current risks. first, we have stronger and robust constitutional safe guards of privacy, liberty and equality. second, we have a learning from experience so ib sternmenternme japanese americans, suppression of freedom of speech, those are all bad lessons that we have

in-kormts in in-kormt in incorporat incorporated. and third, one reason we're not experiencing it, we're seeing terrible attacks from independent institutions from the white house and that is disturbing, but one thing we're not facing is serious imminent national security threats. and it is under those conditions that people i think rightly put the safety of the country first, but they sometimes in history have wrongly put kind of a distant second -- >> things unravel. >> which has always been what has concerned mika, what happens if with we -- >> that is my number one concern. >> and this is so fascinating, one more question. do you believe -- we're coming up on 250 years as a nation of institutions having been built and tlenk strengstrengthened ov. do you believe that one person, one president over four years or perhaps eight years can undo not entirely, but in a permanent way some of our institutions? in other words, this is about one person or is it about a bigger problem?

>> i think one person can significantly weaken long standing norms and make a recovery time very challenging and lengthy unless you have someone who follows republican or democrat who insists on those norms. and we've seen occasionally stuff like that happen, though here the risk at least in terms of attacks on institutions and norms are novel, even if you like president trump's substantive policies. >> all right. i want to make the turn now to the breaking news of the morning which is the attorney of stormy daniels confirming saying that there was a threat to his client, physical harm. and barbara mcquaid, i'll start with you. how does this change the dynamic -- and i'd like to say, predict, i only predict, that the president will either fire a lot of people or do a lot of different things to distract today, we expect a very busy news day today from the white house. and i would suggest do not be distracted. but barbara, how do you think that revelation changes the

equation of that case? >> well, i think it makes a significant difference. it goes from, you know, just and you issue about president trump's personal life and perhaps his propensity to pay hush money into something far more sinister, a physical threat. i think that elevates the conversation. i think people who previously may have said i don't really care about president trump's personal life, i think ought to care when it comes to someone i imposing physical threats. >> i asked this question of jonathan turley. we have this moment on the show with michael avenatti, we now have the "60 minutes" interview coming up a week from sunday. as a lawyer, as someone who is paying attention to all these issues, what will you be paying attention to most in that interview in terms of legal and potentially political consequence? >> is that for me or jonathan?

>> that is for you. >> one of the things that i think is significant is how this could relate to the robert mueller investigation. they are very different and in some ways i'm sure robert mueller doesn't want anything to do with this case because it may be a distraction. but there is a rule of evidence that allows someone to present evidence of a common scheme or plan. and to the extent robert mueller is interested in obstruction of justice, this idea of paying hush money or even physically threatening to intimidate someone who might say something unfavorable to you, i think feeds into that common scheme or plan. so i think if i'm part of robert mueller's team, i'm listening carefully for that angle. >> so john turley, i want to get into your fourth coming piece about red lines. we remember problemesident obam red line this is syria. and today on the front page about a red line president trump drew where he said they will never go after the trump organization, bob mueller will never go after the trump

organization. and now they have subpoenaed documents for that. what is the danger generally speaking and specifically in this case about drawing a red line when you are president of the united states? >> well, it is something of a habit among presidents and it never turns out well. you know, the most dangerous red lines are the one that is someone doesn't give you. prosecutors don't give red lines, they have give you subpoenas. so it always puts presidents in a tough position when you say i really mean it and that is why this is a red line. and then somebody defies you. this is serious. as i've said before, the greatest dangers in my view for the white house was not coming from something like a collusion crime, but rather financial fraud, false statements, the type of things that prosecutors can make a great deal out of. one of the deals in particular that would be covered by the subpoena involves the trump tower in moscow. and, you know, there really are

some e-mails that tie that deal to the election. that nexus was created actually by an associate of president trump who refers to getting the help of putin to try to get the deal and how it might help president trump. so it falls well within the mandate, a rather broad mandate, given to mueller. >> so barbara, president trump's businesses have always been in the background of all these stories from russia and otherwise and how he can fully actually separate himself which he hasn't done from those business ties even as president. so as a former u.s. attorney when you look at these subpoenas of the trump organization, what does it tell yyou? >> i think it certainly suggests that robert mueller is focusing on president trump and his businesses as part of this investigation. that is an obvious point. but i don't see how any responsible prosecutor can investigate a case like this without looking to these financial deals. you have to understand the links between people, you have to understand motivations and most

importantly in a case like this, he wants to understand whether there is any leverage over president trump. so a good analogy, if you suspect your spouse having an affair, you look at the credit cards to see if there are any unexplained bills. those help tell you what is going on and give you a lot of information. similarly the financial records in this case are essential to understanding what happened with russia and trump. >> all right. barbara mcquaid and jonathan turley, thank you both so much. we greatly appreciate it. so there may be a confrontation between the executive branch and the judicial branch if the president decides he is not going to comply with a subpoena or decides he won't sit with bob mueller or even if the supreme court ultimately rules on whether the president can be indicted or not. with your book as the

background, this question as the background, talk about how the courts, the federal courts, have responded to the threats from this president and how if you believe like i do that they really held the line, whether they were appointed by republican or democrat being presidents? >> are so the courare so the co heroic under all presidents in insisting on fidelity to the law. so there is a little case about protecting the children against lead paint where the trump administration didn't go forward with regulatory activity. and the court is said no, sir, look at the law. and in cases that involve things involving national security, whether the decisions are right or wrong and some people -- republicans haven't loved the decisions, but they have certainly been in the go main of the reasonable and fully in the domain of the law focus. and that suggests that at least

when there isn't an outcry that is associated with national security threat, we can probably rely on judges not to protect the country from every risk of authoritarianism, but to protect the country's rule of law which is central to ensuring that we don't have anauthoritarianism. >> the book is can it happen here. thank you so much. and there is more breaking news this morning. u.s. officials confirm just moments ago that seven american service members were killed late last night when a military helicopter crashed in western iraq near the syrian border. we'll continue to follow developments with that right here on morning joe. [drip. drip.]

need a change of scenery? kayak searches hundreds of travel and hotel sites so you can be confident you're getting the perfect hotel at the best price. soak it in. kayak. search one and done. on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort, your sleep number setting. does your bed do that? it's the last chance for clearance savings up to $600. plus free home delivery on most beds. ends monday. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you. another anti-wrinkle cream

in no hurry to make anything happen. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair works in just one week. with the fastest retinol formula to visibly reduce wrinkles. neutrogena®.

before the break we reported the breaking news that u.s. officials confirmed searven american service members were

killed when a military helicopter crashed near the syrian border. clearly american troops are still in harm's way in iraq and syria. joining us now, graham wood who has written stenextensively on . he is out with a new piece looking at germany's effort to take in refugees from the middle east and africa amid uncertainty about migrants' possible connections to extreatmemist gr. >> we had you here when you had the cover story on isis, one of the first to examine the growth of isis. and now we're hearing reports of the collapse of isis, but we're seeing a lot of stories out that suggest that maybe their death is greatly exaggerated. >> that is definitely the case. isis had two different forms. the form of a building of a state, controlling city,

administering the city, and that is sort of over although there are still pockets of where isis still exist. but ten thehen there is the isi surprises after that, the inspirational force that has pockets way outside of syria, so places like afghanistan where we now know there are probably as many as 3,000 isis fighters in the afghanistan/pakistan area. so it's far, far from being defeated in that second form especially. >> you're talking about what germany is doing, this atlantic story, to try to figure out how to screen syrian migrants. we're talking about facial recognition and other advances. what have you found out? >> yes, so germany had to take in about 1 million asylum seekers in the course of about a year. and that is almost unheard of. i mean this is more refugees, more refugee acclaimants then we've seen since the second world war. it's effectively like trying to

eat a burrito in one bite. figuring out ways to chew and swallow and digest. that means getting techniques down that -- bureaucracy, the german refugee agency, has had to expand, and really get good at detecting who is a real refugee, who's fleeing mortal danger. >> right, and you got a first look at their operations. >> i was the first journalist who was able to see exactly what technology they were putting into place. some of it's quite impressive. only part of it is trying to figure out who might be a terrorist. some of it is figuring out is this person really in danger of his life. >> you're in a situation where you literally have a million refugees coming in from a third world country. how do they even disseminate -- what tools do they have? you've got people just pouring in. >> yes, it's almost impossible.

think of it this way. if you're a jegerman government employee and trying to figure out if this person is from where he says he's from. trying to figure that out -- >> how do you -- is there a yes/no question for "are you a terrorist?" >> well, you can ask things. so the germans have put together a database of questions. if you say you're from a small town in syria, they might be able to flip through this book and say you're from this town, can you tell me what ice cream store is on the following corner. and if the person can't say it, he has to explain why he is not familiar with the geography of his hometown. that's what germany has developed over the last couple of years is these kind of detective techniques to figure out if someone really is telling the truth. >> all right. >> thank you very much. we'll be looking for your piece in the april issue of the atlantic. thank you very much. and we'll be back in two minutes to put a very busy news morning into perspective. expect a lot of news today.

from the white house, including the moment here on "morning joe" that all but guarantees the stormy daniels story will generate deeper scrutiny. we'll be right back. your me-tim. that sunday night date night with hbo allllllll night thing. that island without men or children would be nice to visit thing. buy an at&t unlimited plan, and get hbo included. more for your thing that's our thing.

but through goodt times and bad at t. rowe price we've helped our investors stay confident for over 80 years. call us or your advisor. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. a trip back to the dthe doctor's office, mean just for a shot. but why go back there, when you can stay home, with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection, which could lead to hospitalizations. in a key study, neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. applied the day of chemo, neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the next day, so you can stay home. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to neulasta or neupogen (filgrastim). ruptured spleen,

sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries, and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. so why go back there? if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro.

this is the story of green mountain coffee roasters dark magic told in the time it takes to brew your cup. first, we head to vermont. and go to our coffee shop. and meet dave. hey. why is dark magic so spell-bindingly good, he asks? let me show you. let's go. so we climb. hike. see a bear. woah. reach the top. dave says dark magic is a bold blend of coffee with rich flavors of uganda, sumatra, colombia and other parts of south america. like these mountains, each amazing on their own. but together? magical. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters packed with goodness. was she threatened in anyway? >> yes. >> was she threatened physical harm? >> yes. >> okay, on that note, we go to final thoughts this morning. joe. >> a lot to learn on march 25th,

with implications for just about every investigation it seems that's going on. facing donald trump the organization. >> interesting that all our lawyers think it's significant and think they could -- that the two -- the stormy daniels thing could have relevance to robert mueller's inquiry. the two key elements, who threatened her, when did the threats occur. >> right. >> we don't know the answers right now. >> what is so interesting, donny, is that jonathan turley from the start has been a skeptic. regarding collusion, obstruction of justice. when i say skeptic, that's a little harsh. >> not a zealot. >> he's always been extraordinarily cautious. and yet, from the very start, even last week in washington, he said he thought the stormy daniels case could be problematic for the president legally. you believe it could be politically. >> i didn't think politically

until now. i thought the whole -- now it's easier to get desensitized. let's just think about what happened. a story about a porn star's alleged affair with the president of the united states who now is saying she was physically threatened to not tell -- like, you can get in it and not realize the insane place we're in. to mika's point, look for an interesting -- >> that we know of his pattern. i'll just say i've always felt like there was something else with this story. just given -- given donald trump's ability to kind of skate through a lot of things as it pear trains to women. i think that the payment is a strange number. it's a really strange number. i thought maybe the theme with this story, the different theme, would be around that number. but it appears that it is about a threat to this porn star who had a relationship with the

president, she claims. and i think the most interesting thing we learned today is from jonathan turley about stormy daniel's attorney, that this is a good guy, a good attorney, an attorney who wouldn't come forward with an allegation without credible proof. >> also what we've learned this week from this story that, again, a lot of people -- i mean, this story was the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth story for a long time. we hardly ever reported on it. but for me this is big news. but for a judge trying to figure out the scope of bob mueller's investigation and whether he can go into the trump organization. the decision by donald trump's attorney to use a trump organization in california actually has an impact i believe ultimately on how much -- how much latitude a federal judge gives bob mueller. >> i think that's right. this thing i think john turley is right. this is going to be a problem for donald trump.

>> all right. that does it for us this morning. >> what a long week. >> one of the -- >> what a long show. >> i know. we were going to show the story from the art gallery last night. we'll do that on monday. it's going to be amazing. >> what we've learned today is that when we're going to break, let mika get the last question. >> no kidding. >> buckle up. >> that's what they say. >> stephanie ruhle. >> thanks, mika. hi there, i'm stephanie ruhle. this morning, we're wrapping up infrastructure week. i'm kidding. remember infrastructure week? we're talking stormy daniels. a growing storm. the lawyer for daniels unveils a shocking revelation about the danger his client faces over her accusations. >> was she threatened in any way? >> yes. >> was she threatened physical harm? >> yes. >> can you believe this is what we're talking about? a new target. special counsel robert mueller reported