friend nicolle wallace begins right now. >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. there's stormy news to report. we're going to get to that in a minute. but first the latest on donald trump's incredible shrinking legal team in the special counsel investigation into potential ties to russia and possible obstruction of justice. "the new york times" is reporting the president's legal defense team is now a one-man operation and the washington post writes that the unraveling of the president's legal team has left his advisors concerned. people familiar with the situation said the president has been counseled by friends that he needs to find a new lawyer to quarterback his team. efforts are underway by people close to trump to hire a new lawyer. but those efforts are not going well. the new lawyers that trump thought he enlisted late last week conflicted out over the weekend. the white house writing, the question, the president is disappointed that conflicts

prevent joe digenova and victoria from joining the president's special counsel legal team. what exactly are those conflicts? other attorneys involved in the mueller probe have been permitted by the special counsel and by their various clients to represent multiple witnesses. this is a common practice when none of the witnesses is a subject of the investigation. the answer, according to four former senior justice department officials i spoke to over the weekend who are all familiar with the investigation is that the two clients in question, mark corral owe and donald trump, likely have divergent interests. two of these former officials say mark caralo may be a witness against the president. another former official saying, quote, we know who mueller was empowered to investigate. we know why mark corallo left. that seems to be a conflict. corallo widely reported left his role as lead spokesman for the president's legal team over concerns that members of the

team were potentially obstructing justice when they crafted a phony cover story for don junior's meeting with russians who offered dirt on hillary clinton. the assessment of these officials leads to more questions about whether the special counsel investigation has potentially moved into another phase and whether that is contributing to or perhaps a by product of trump's hiring challenges. to help us sift through it all, we are joined by some of our favorite friends and reporters from "the new york times," justice reporter matt apuzzo, from the washington post white house reporter ashley parker and former u.s. attorney now an msnbc contributor joyce vance. hi, all. matt apuzzo, let me start with you. these officials said that plainly it is common practice for lawyers -- i think anyone that is covering the special counsel probe knows that reince priebus and steve bannon and don mcgahn all share an attorney and that was permitted by the special counsel, but that there

was a conflict, that the white house acknowledged a conflict between the spouse of mark corallo's attorney and donald trump. seems like a big flashing red light. >> that's right. it is 100% the case that, as you mention, this is essentially about the representation of mark corallo. in the legal world it's known as divergent interests. the president and mark corallo have divergent interests. he has accused the trump administration of attempting to obstruct justice and so you can't as a lawyer both carry water for that argument and carry the water that, no, the president is not obstructing justice. what is fascinating to me is that this was obvious to every reporter and every lawyer in this case in about 30 seconds after the news broke that joe

digenova was joining the team. it's not clear to me why that wasn't immediately obvious to the white house, to the president when he announced the expansion of this team. it certainly is the case that they need lawyers, you know, right now jay sekulow leading the case is not a criminal lawyer. he's a constitutional lawyer. he's done a lot of civil work. he's never entered a federal appearance in a criminal case. this was done hurriedly before the routine basic checks could get done. >> joyce, does this suggest if someone is conflicted from representing mark corallo and the president because mark corallo could offer damaging testimony about the president in a potential obstruction of justice case, does this suggest that the president's status may not be the same as mark's? he may not simply be a witness? could he have been informed that he's a subject of the investigation?

>> so, the short answer is we just don't know. it could be that he's already been advised by the mueller team about his status whether he's a witness, a subject or a target of the investigation. but they're not required to do that just yet. i think the longer answer is it seems clear that virtually any witness to any form of obstruction of this investigation is likely a witness whose lawyer cannot simultaneously represent that witness and president trump, for the witness we've just seen with joe digenova didn't last a scaramucci of time in this white house. this is the shortest we've seen a lawyer last on this team. >> to ashley parker who knows a little bit about the scaramucci era. can you talk about how so many of the president's political problems are self-inflicted. this feels like one of the first

real self-inflicted legal problems. it feels like they're telegraphing something that they may not want -- have wanted to telegraph at a time when they are trying to recruit, as your paper reported last week, there was an effort to recruit someone like ted olson into the legal team which went nowhere, as you guys reported. but it seems like they stepped in it by announcing counsel that ultimately wouldn't be able to represent them. >> sure. i would argue this is sort of actually a long self-inflicted legal issue because part of the reason the president and his team ended up with this lawyer in the first place was that just about everyone else said no and the president tweeted recently that, of course, no lawyer would turn down the fame and fortune of representing the president in the white house, but that's simply not true. the president has tried to get a number of lawyers.

as you mentioned ted olson, a number of top white collar lawyers, criminal defense lawyers who simply want to have nothing to do with this white house. and that's because of previously self-inflicted mistakes which is the president's own lawyers will sort of have intimated privately and sometimes even if you parse their public comments publicly, he is the world's worst client. the only reason he got to this place in the first place is basically he couldn't bring anyone else on board. he tried to hire joe de genre basically by the way he's brought in a number of people recently which is seeing them on television, seeing them on fox news and recruiting them to the white house and it's not surprising necessarily that that didn't end well. >> so, this is the, what, that the president can't find lawyers to represent him. let's go back to the why, matt apuzzo. your by line is on a story from january. i don't know that mark corallo is a house name.

in the mueller probe, you reported he plans to tell investigators ms. hicks, hope hicks said e-mail written by donald trump jr. before the trump tower meeting in which he said he was eager to receive political dirt about mrs. clinton from the russians will never get out. that left mr. corallo with concerns hicks could be obstructing justice. let me add two more pieces of reporting that i picked up from a source close to mr. corallo. i understand that he had concerns that there were legal questions about government employees doing work on behalf of the president's son who wasn't a government employee in the first place, as well as the entire ethos around the family and everyone in the family orbit about a complete disregard for following any laws. >> yeah, and this all goes back to this story that the times reported last summer revealing

the trump tower meeting between donald trump, jr. and the russian lawyers. originally they came back and said, no, we were talking about russian adoption. that's totally normal. and only after we followed up and said no, you were told it was about getting damaging information about hillary clinton did that story sort of unravel. turns out that behind the scenes there was fighting going on, as there often is, between mark corallo who is a spokesman for the legal team and hope hicks representing the white house. both sides tell two very different stories. as we understand, mark corallo's testimony to bob mueller, he basically said as you pointed out, i thought this whole thing was screwed up and i thought hope hicks was suggesting we were going to try to obstruct justice and i was appalled by this. and hicks's lawyer who doesn't normally give interviews came out with this absolutely adamant, this is not the case.

this is 100% not true, and people at the white house say, look, if anybody was advocating for transparency, that was her. so, again, this is why you can't have the president's lawyer represented by the same guy representing this witness because the white house's position diametrically opposed to his whole story. >> ashley, let me bring you in on this and the sort of foundation of all these questions. obviously the investigation into russia, the white house making some news today, although i haven't seen the president weigh in on that. but white house getting in front of or participating in, i won't say getting in front of, the expulsion of russians from this country. is the white house efforting some sort of public face from the president on this news? are they happy to let this news come from the press secretary's podium? >> that's a great question. and basically, when it comes to russia, this white house often has to be sort of dragged kicking and screaming into its

steps. although that is a little unfair to the administration broadly because the truth is we know that, you know, the president's intelligence agency, the president until recently secretary of state rex tillerson, there's a number of people throughout this administration who have been pressing the president to take a much more forceful line on russia, whether it's the meddling in our elections where he is very, very reluctant to go, or something like this, starting with the sanctions we saw just the other week and today's expulsions. so, sometimes there is sort of a big bureaucracy pushing towards this and it does finally happen, even if the president is not or does not want to be the figure head for that and is more than happy to have it come from the podium, or in a quieter statement or from other white house officials. >> and, joyce, let me give you the last word on this part of the conversation. i heard from the former head of an intelligence agency the u.s. government essentially had a bifurcated russia policy, that immediately after the deadly attacks in the u.k., that the

intelligence community and members of law enforcement would have been involved in the same ways they would have been involved in 2006 with assisting, despite and regardless of the president's public pronouncements on russia. >> yeah, you know, that is absolutely true. it is important to remember that the justice department, which is really to the extent it has the national security function, it's combined within the national security division and main justice, the fbi, some of the u.s. attorneys offices, but they play a robust role in these sort of national security investigations. they have critical stakeholder interests. they work alongside of the intelligence community. and it's an awkward time, it's a concerning time, particularly because of some of the leaks that have come out of the white house, particularly the conversation in the oval office with ambassador kislyak when he was still working with still the

russian ambassador here. so, the national security role that's being played in that area i think has become, frankly, a little bit awkward in some regards. >> matt apuzzo, ashley parker and joyce vance, thank you so much for starting us off. i missed you all last week. joining us at the table, john heilman who did yoeman's work shepherding this show a couple days. thank you, my friend. former democratic congressman steve israel, chairman of the global institute and author of a brand-new book we'll talk about. former congressman david jolly and former congresswoman. >> can i be a former congressman -- >> life is good. >> first time i've ever wanted to be a former member. >> we are way above our grade here. so, let's start with you since you're down here with me. donald trump has been obsessed with having the heads of his national security agencies say over and over again he is not a

subject of the investigation. it seems like just the fact that mark corallo's, it wasn't even his attorney, it was his attorney's husband wasn't allowed to represent him. it is telegraphing to the world that at least mark corallo's testimony puts him in a different category. >> there was a period of time president trump was more insistent around this point. when he fired comey it was a matter of dispute for him. recently i've not heard him say it quite as adamantly partly because the facts are so obviously make him appear to be at least the subject. you have the obstruction of justice track of the case. >> right. >> which obviously focuses on trump. and we learned a week, two weeks ago whenever it was, we learned about the subpoenas for all the information about trump businesses, which put the spotlight pretty clearly on the president. joyce said they don't have to inform them at this point. there is no determination early on where you have to say now you're a subject versus a

witness. it is clear the focus is mainly on him. it is clear on the basis of the other information mueller is looking for that he's no longer -- if he's not already a formal subject of the collusion inquiry, at least it's a track that mueller is digging into in a pretty significant way. and it's hard given all of that public information, it's hard for trump to continue to insist, although it doesn't stop him. it is hard for him to insist he's absolutely in the clear. >> can you imagine -- i mean, we've been on other sides of the partisan divide. but you know, bush and cheney had no problem finding attorneys to represent them in the valerie plame case. even the most polarizing figures, john edwards had abby lowell. people are able to hire lawyers in washington because -- >> they're mercenaries. >> what do you make of the fact donald trump can't find a lawyer? >> they are one step away from

putting help wanted ads in the weekly paper. who wants to work at their own firing squad? if you're a lawyer and you're being recruited you know there is a good chance whether you are donald trump's legal team or on his cabinet or any other capacity in the white house, you get hired with great fanfare and hype, then you get summarily thrown over, under the bus, over the wall. who would want to do that? the problem that donald trump has i think this week, another week of legal problems, is the disclosure that there may have been a significant campaign finance violation in the payment of $130,000 to stormy daniels which absolutely exceeds and violates federal law. you can't contribute more than $5400. this is significantly above it. this may open up a whole new legal problem for donald trump and his people. >> so, just to jump off of that, i thought the white house statement saying that even though joe digenova and victoria toensing can't represent me in this matter, there is stuff they can help me on.

most presidents don't say i'm so screwed i might need lawyers for that problem -- the idea, though, that the white house statement itself channelled the conflicts with corallo and said we may very well need their help on another front. >> nicolle, let's take the big picture. donald trump is the subject of investigation by bob mueller on three fronts -- >> how do you know that? as obvious as a lawyer? >> you don't act guilty if you're not guilty. secondly we know what bob mueller is looking at as an investigator's investigator. first, is there financial exposure to russia or other state based on the dealings of trump organization. the likelihood for that is very high. secondly it is the two areas that tripped up bill clinton. obstruction of justice and perjury. we know this president, if he has not already engage in them, will engage in them. why can he not hire counsel? very simply, bill clinton himself was an attorney and despite whatever you think about

the impeachment, he lost his arkansas bar license and he wasn't allowed to practice in front of the u.s. supreme court because an attorney cannot represent a client in this case of donald trump who is going to perjure himself, lie and defraud a court. and that is what's coming together in the trump world and it might be his ultimate unraveling. >> donna, something else a witness pointed out to me today is that the constant refrain is collusion isn't a crime. the other constant refrain on the obstruction side lying to a reporter isn't a crime. however, it was conversations with reporters that led to scooter libby's perjury ea indictment. this is a perilous area. when the befs defense is collusion isn't a crime, lying to the press as they did to "the new york times" and washington post when they uncovered don junior's e-mails, they are walking right up against a line that could very easily have brought about criminal actions by people in the trump orbit. >> i think that's true. and i also think that what's happening with the president and part of the reason that he can't find a lawyer to represent him

is because he's a really bad client. you have lawyers out there that even if they could, even if they have the capacity to do it are saying, you know what, i don't want to have anything to do with this. here's a guy that won't stay off twitter, whose mouth we can't control. it means they then won't have control over the representation. he reminds me -- i clerked on a criminal court like 30 years ago and he reminds me -- >> -- >> right. he reminds me of guys who come in and want to represent themselves, they spout off and the judge has to say, please, some lawyer come help this guy out. this is our president right now. it's a problem. >> go ahead. >> there is a case he may be losing right now, it's not stormy daniels. not others. it's summer zervos. he met her at the beverley hills hilton hotel who while she alleged sexual assault, it is about defamation. the courts have allowed her to proceed with that. if they can get him under oath,

precedent says this is where perjury happens. >> not a crime to lie to reporters. if it were true, there would probably be 150 people in washington who would be in jail. that is not the heart of the obstruction of justice case. there is a reason why john dean was in public saying donald trump was committing obstruction of justice at a greater level in front of our very eyes at a greater level than richard nixon did because of the firing of jim comey and the firing, the graduate slow motion -- the slow motion decimation of everybody in the fbi. anyone who threatens him on the russia investigation. that is where the obstruction of justice is playing out in plain sight. the prime facia case is playing out. it's a problem, but not the core of what he's going to get in trouble for if obstruction of justice is or one of or the thing that trips him up.

it will be for this much broader, bigger picture. >> i'm going to have a hard time getting to commercials today. when we come back, why one election law expert warns the stormy daniels scandal could be far worse than the john edwards sex scandal and potentially of great interest to special counsel bob mueller. we'll be joined at the table by stormy daniels's attorney michael avenatti. stay with us.

if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you,

ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.

so, you signed and released a statement that said, i'm not denying this affair because i was paid in hush money. i'm denying it because it never happened. that's a lie.

>> yes. >> if it was untruthful, why did you sign it? >> because they made it sound like i had no choice. >> no one was putting a gun to your head. >> not physical violence, no. >> you thought there would be some legal repercussion if you didn't sign it? >> as a matter of fact the exact sentence used was they can make your life hell in many different ways. >> "they" being? >> i'm not exactly who "they" were. i believe it to be michael cohen. >> stormy daniels finally speaking out in the highly anticipated interview in 60 minutes last night detailing the underlying issue of this story. it is not just the alleged extra marital affair. it is not the fact she's an adult film acstretress. it's the alleged threats, the hush money used to cover the story up and one that could have further implications in the special counsel's investigation. >> the payment of the money just creates an enormous legal mess for i think trump, for cohen, and anyone else who was involved

in this in the campaign. >> is there any way that special counsel robert mueller could investigate the stormy daniels payment? >> that's the wild card here. >> as a prosecutor, you want to get leverage over somebody that you could then use to get them to give you other information which you're really interested in? >> correct. >> stormy daniels attorney michael avenatti joins me now. i want to get into that, but there is breaking news in the case and i want you to tell our viewers about what you just filed, your client is accusing the president's attorney of defamation? >> well, correct. among other things, about ten minutes ago we filed what is called a first amended complaint where we added additional details relating to the allegations in connection with the lawsuit that is now pending in federal court. what we've added is as follows -- >> this is your lawsuit against her -- against the trump organization alleging that the nondisclosure agreement is not valid because it wasn't signed? >> that's correct. it was originally, originally named donald trump as well as this llc that mr. cohen formed.

and what we've done now is we've added the following allegations and a number of these are very critical and very, very important for your viewers to understand. first of all, we have added an allegation or claim of defamation against mr. cohen for his previous denials of the affair basically calling my client a liar. so, we're going to put those claims to the test and we're going to prove that, in fact, my client is telling the truth and it is mr. cohen who has misled the american people. that's number one. >> we're not lawyers, but the ultimate defense in a defamation case is the truth. if she is found to tell the truth she prevails over mr. cohen. >> the opposite. he effectively told a lie about my client. his lie was the affair did not happen effectively. we're going to prove that it did happen and therefore his denial was inaccurate. so, that's the first thing. but secondly and equally important if not more important, we are now seeking to invalidate the agreement, not just because

it wasn't signed, but on a host of other grounds. the most significant of which for the purposes of our discussion right now, and this goes hand in hand with what mr. potter said on 60 minutes, is because we are contending that this agreement was designed to basically further a campaign finance violation the way that it was carried out, the conspiracy that existed, the way that it was handled, et cetera, and therefore it should be void under public policy. it should not be enforced because it was designed to influence the election and purposely avoid reporting it pursuant to federal election law. >> why didn't you start there? why didn't you start with the campaign finance violation, which trevor potter as a campaign lawyer -- i've worked with him over the course of my political career. i think laid out that this even more dangerous for donald trump than john edwards' pay outs were. i think even before he had become -- he wasn't the nominee.

this is so glaringly dangerous for mr. trump if the facts are as you allege. >> well, the reason why we didn't start there was because we didn't want to get over the tips of our skis. we tried to be fairly methodical in the way we've gone about doing this. we wanted to do some more research. we wanted to consult more experts in the field before we just filed that claim. now we feel comfortable filing it and that's why we have filed it here today. but as it relates to mr. potter, mr. potter is not some left-wing hack. this is a gentleman -- >> he's not. >> he is very well respected. he was appointed by a republican, george w. bush at the time. he served under george w. bush. this is a well respected individual that is very well versed in campaign finance law and your viewers, i'm sure, saw his comments last night. and his comments were clear. mr. cohen and the president have a significant problem. either way, regardless of whether mr. cohen paid it and was reimbursed or not, this is a huge issue. and now that we have alleged

that this is another reason to invalidate the agreement, it just got that much bigger. >> let me ask you about this idea that trevor also raises that bob mueller is a wild card. have you been contacted by the mueller investigation? >> i'm not going to answer that question. >> if you were, would you be willing to help bob mueller's investigation? >> we're going to comply with any legal process that we receive. my client and i. we're going to do exactly what is required. >> so, i guess the reason -- we spend a lot of time covering the mueller investigation, which seems to be trying to understand if perhaps the russians had something on donald trump. there is something about the incompetence with which they set about trying to make a nondisclosure agreement contract with your client that suggests that if michael cohen couldn't competently execute an nda, no insult intended here, with an adult film actress, what might the russians have on him. did any of that interview with mr. potter resonate with you in terms of the facts you know about you haven't yet shared? >> here's what i will say.

mr. schwartz, who is mr. cohen's attorney in another matter, has gone on other networks and he's defended this nda and he's described it as air tight. in a model of legalese or legal documentation, this nda is an absolute joke. it contains a bunch of terms that are not applicable. while it is extensive, it not a lot of thought was put into it. mr. cohen wants the american people to believe that mr. trump never knew anything about it and he was never going to know anything about it. if he was never going to know anything about it, then why did he include a signature line for mr. trump? it makes absolutely no sense. it's one of the sloppy est documents i've seen drafted in my career. and, you know, it is a prime example of what i will describe as legal buffoonery. >> you have also talked about thuggery. and i want to ask you about a part of the interview, as a mom who strapped a kid in the back of my car, gave me, you know, a real sense of unease.

stormy daniels talked in the interview yesterday about someone coming up to her in a parking lot when she was putting her infant in the back of a car. who was that person? >> well, we are in the process of trying to run that to ground and, in fact, in light of the 60 minutes interview, we have received a handful of leads, a couple of which were very promising. we don't know how long it's going to take. we are actively attempting to figure out exactly who that person was. >> have you ruled out michael cohen? >> it was not michael cohen individually. >> have you ruled out mr. shiller? >> it was not him individually. >> but you haven't ruled out an associate of mr. cohen and mr. shiller? >> correct. quite frankly, it could have only come with someone associated with mr. cohen and mr. trump because of the circumstances of that. mr. trump was not running for president in 2011. there was only a handful of people that knew that this story was about to break in the magazine and of course mr. cohen took steps to kill the story. the magazine has confirmed that. the only three groups that this

hoodlum could have come from, my client didn't send somebody to terrorize herself. why would the magazine do that? doesn't ma i can any sense. mr. cohen and mr. trump and their camp. common sense tells us that's where it had to come from. >> let me go back to the defamation case. what is your proof to prove your client isn't lying about a sexual relationship with the president? >> we have my client's testimony and other documentary evidence we are going to bring to light -- you're going to ask what documents or evidence -- >> you tweeted a picture of a cd. we went round and round about whether there is a sex tape. is there video evidence of their sexual encounter? >> i'm going to go back to my same answer. >> it wasn't no. >> it wasn't yes either. at the appropriate time, just like this amended complaint, okay, this is a chess match. the folks on the other side, they may think we're playing tick-tack-toe and that's great. we're playing three dimensional chess. we're going to be deliberate, we're going to be strategic and we'ring good-bye smart.

i understand that everybody wants instant gratification. i get it. i hear it, i read it, i understand it. that's not going to change our approach. that the not going to change the way we try this case. >> let me ask you, last time you were here you talked about other people coming forward now that you are in the line of work of defending people who were intimidated and threatened by people around the president allegedly, people that were held to ndas that were either incompetently executed or that you view as inoperative or illegal. are all of the other people people who had sexual relationship with the president or do you have the sense that they paid money to hush up other people doing other things? >> all of the individuals who have contacted us claim to have had intimate relationships with the president. however, again, i want to be really careful with this. we have not vetted those six stories. i'm not willing to lend my reputation behind them. i'm not willing to vouch for them like i am my client. we are a long way away from doing that.

people claim all kinds of things. they come out of the woodwork, they make stories up, et cetera. here's what i do know. you don't pay $130,000 to somebody that doesn't have a legitimate claim. you just don't do it. and if that is the case, if mr. cohen is in the business of paying $130,000 to anybody on the planet that just happens to make a bogus claim against his friend, mr. trump, i'd urge every viewer in america to call mr. cohen's office here in new york city, claim they have a relationship with the president, and they'll promptly get a check for $130,000, i guess. it's absurd. >> let me ask you about something else you said in the 60 minutes interview. you called the effort righteous. anderson cooper also pressed you about your own political affiliations. i want to ask you if the sense that this is righteous is because of a belief that you think the truth should be out there about mr. trump and the people he surrounds himself with, or if it is rooted in any sort of political motivation for you? >> two quotes. john adams said facts are

stubborn things. and indeed they are stubborn things. and we want all of the stubborn things to be laid out for the american people. two, louis brandeis, former supreme court justice described sunlight as the best disinfectant. we're going to bring as much sunlight to this as possible. it is righteous. we're going to let the american people see the facts and they're going to decide. >> are the facts going to get x-rated or r rated any time soon? >> stay tuned. >> can you tell us anything else about how your client felt about last night? there was controversy, men and women experienced it differently. we talked a little bit about some of the twitter reaction. some people said nothing to see here. other people, i don't know what their expectation was, i think most women in america are pretty interested in a president who has operationalized, albeit incompetently, a hush system. what do you think the take away should have been last night? >> well, here's what i do know. i haven't heard from any mothers who did not hear that story and

were not frightened or disturbed by it. you referenced it earlier. a mother getting her young child out of the back of a car, all of a sudden a man is up on her and threatens her. that's a terrifying thing. >> it really is. let's watch that. >> i was in a parking lot going to a fitness class with my infant daughter. i was taking -- the seat is facing backwards in the back seat, diaper bag, you know, getting all the stuff out. and a guy walked up on me and said to me, leave trump alone, forget the story. and then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, a beautiful little girl, it would be a shame if something happened to her mom, and then he was gone. >> you took it as a direct threat? >> absolutely. i was rattled. i remember going into the workout class and my hands were shaking so much i was afraid i was going to drop her. >> did you ever see the person again? >> no. but if i did, i would know it right away. i'll never forget -- >> you would be able to recognize that person?

>> 100%, even now all these years later. if he walked in this door right now, i would instantly know. >> did you go to the police? >> no. >> why? >> because i was scared. >> let me show you the white house responding to that in today's press briefing. >> was the president aware of a physical threat made against ms. daniels when she was with her daughter back in 2011? >> well, the president doesn't believe that any of the claims that ms. daniels made last night in the interview are accurate. >> he doesn't believe she was threatened? >> no, he does not. >> what is his basis for that? >> sorry? >> what is his basis for that? >> he doesn't believe -- there is nothing to corroborate her claim. >> doesn't believe she was threatened seems to imply that he believes other parts of the story. i don't know that he meant to say that. what did you hear? >> no, i think -- that's exactly what he meant to say. there are a lot of selective word choice that goes on in these briefings. it is important to parse it as

ridiculous as it seems. the president doesn't deny she was in the room with her, doesn't deny the affair. >> never heard those things. >> never heard those things. the reason why we haven't heard those things because she's telling the truth. your viewers saw the piece last night. they just saw her answering the question yet again. does that strike you as a woman that's lying? let me tell you this. this woman is either entirely credible on this point, or she's missing her calling because she could have been a five-time academy award winning actress. >> she is in a similar industry. let me just ask you, let me end here. where do you think the white house is going to go? do you feel like -- i mean, you've had some people criticizing the way information is being dripped out. i've read it is part of a strategy. do you feel like there is any appreciate ir pressure on you to get the facts outs? do you feel like the end game -- is the legal process driving the media strategy or is the media

strategy driving the process? >> let me answer some of those critics. this is an ongoing piece of litigation. with each piece or with each passing day, we acquire more information. we acquire information that is provided to us. we do additional research. this is a fluid situation. so, information is being provided strategically. >> you can release the sex tape if there is one. >> it is being provided strategically, but it is also being provided as it is gathered and as we have filings and things of that nature. look, we're playing a chess match. we're not make tick-tack-toe. if they want to play tick-tack-toe that's wonderful. we're going to play chess, we're going to get to the bottom of this and when we do the facts will be known. >> have you hired an election lawyer as co-counsel for an election fraud case? >> no. >> are you looking into that? >> yes. >> because of what trevor potter said and because of your understanding of potential election violations because of the payment? >> we were looking into it before we heard what mr. potter said. >> there is now enough evidence there that you are looking at

that as a next legal phase potentially? >> yes. >> keep us posted. >> thank you. >> it is a pleasure to have you. >> appreciate it. >> michael avenatti, we thank you. we're going to sneak in a break. when we come back the panel weighs in on a question. if you can't execute an nda with a porn star how can you be trusted to negotiate peace in the middle east or denuclearization in the korean peninsula? last years' ad campaign

was a success for choicehotels.com badda book. badda boom. this year, we're taking it up a notch. so in this commercial we see two travelers at a comfort inn with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom.

nobody glows. he gets it. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com ♪♪ i'm 85 and i wanna lifego home ♪savannah ♪ [ding] [boxing bell ding] [applause] we're back and i'm going to tell secrets. everyone agrees that at least on this issue, donald trump is very clearly out lawyered, out p.r.'d and is getting out maneuvered. mr. avenatti sees opportunities to add to the legal case against mr. trump and mr. cohen and he takes them. what i just heard was that they're looking now at campaign finance violations and just before he came on the air, news broke that stormy daniels is suing mr. cohen for defamation.

seems like the president's troubles are getting bigger. >> he's got some real problems. the guy gets elected because he's the consummate deal maker is out spun and out lawyered. there is a political dimension to this that is important. we are eight months away from the midterm election, nicolle, and i talked to david's and donna's and my former competitor in the district, we have a narrative now where every day we hear words like porn star, hush money, fec violation. we want this president to be setting a narrative on words like opioid abuse and words like tax cuts and he's not letting us function in that narrative. so, they are just getting so frustrated. we just had a republican congressman costello from the suburbs of philadelphia, he just announced he's not going to run. he's leaving because he doesn't believe that you can have any kind of bipartisan ship. i think the real reason is he is one of those republicans who read the papers every day, turn on television and realize this

is not an hospitable environment for a republican to be running in and donald trump is not helping. he's actually hurting. >> i scoured the papers and all of the news coverage this morning looking for a single republican who is critical of the president's conduct either sexually or in running a cover up operation. do you know how many i found? >> zero. >> zero. what's the deal? >> those are different questions. i think society has moved to the point that a president is allowed to be a dirt bag if he wants to be a dirt bag. >> between him and his wife. >> and still get nominated. whether or not there is a cover up or legal culpability is a true question and a constitutional question that could rise to the level of impeachment. look, mr. avenatti is clearly a fantastic attorney and he is out lawyering trump's attorneys. i will tell you i'm a little underwhelmed by the p.r. move in all this. here's why. a lawyer argues the civil culpability within the four corners of a document and civil procedural courtroom. this is either going to be an attack on president trump's

integrity and on his fitness for office, or it's going to be a legal argument. and those are two different lanes. and we've got to be very careful how this is approached. if we're trying to tear down the president for his moral culpability, fine, let's have that conversation. i'm not sure mr. avenatti is the person to lead that conversation because he is the lawyer arguing the civil case. that's a national conversation we need to have. >> let me play devil's advocate for a moment. i don't disagree with what you said. in a vacuum it is filled by whoever steps into it. there isn't anyone willing to have that conversation. i talked to a republican who said, i had to walk away after charlottesville. really? how did you walk in after access hollywood? p-grabber didn't get you? where does this conversation start? >> my point is this. the five of us should be having the conversation with the nation about the president's culpability and fitness for office. you know who else is leading a significant investigation and not speaking to the press? bob mueller. and a lawyer at times needs to

be a lawyer and that's my only reservation. >> look, avenatti is representing his client. his client is not the american public. it's not donald trump. it is stormy daniels, stephanie clifford. i think that clearly the president is being out lawyered and out maneuvered. the strategy is all on stormy daniels's side. but to steve's point, the politics of that, who is turned off is those white suburban women voters and that has played out in special elections and it's going to play out over the next eight months. and this is where republicans really have a problem because they can't go out there talking about any of the things that steve laid out because they're so focused on trying to figure out a way to maneuver around the president's bad behavior. you know, one thing if it were just about the president behaving badly toward women, but there is a political dimension to it. >> i've been impressed by avenatti as a tactician and as a

strategist because he's taken a client who, just on the bare facts of it, the notion of an adult film star who signed a contract, happily took the money, lied, admits that she lied on several occasions, is not inherently a hugely credible witness. he's turned her into an incredibly credible witness and has also shifted the discussion away from all of those facts to is this woman -- does this woman have a right to have her story heard and a president trying to keep her from telling her story to the american people. he's done both those things brilliantly. the question i have is not about him, but the question that still remains, having listened to her last night, why has donald trump so freaked out by this woman? because they're saying she owes him $20 million and they have made this into a bigger issue than it needed to be. no one in america is surprised that donald trump had sex on one occasion, by her account, with an adult film entertainer. no one is surprised by that. and donald trump has proven that he can behave horribly towards

women and still get elected president, that he can boast about -- he went for years, his whole life before he ran for president, he went on "page six" and howard stern and talked rig center. so what she came out and said last night seems wholly vur vie -- survivable to me -- >> what else -- >> what is your theory? >> i don't have a theory. i know it seems that that is all there is, why is trump so afraid of it. >> i have a theory. >> go ahead. >> and i think it is about russia. i think it is among a laundry list of things the president -- that is holding on to that the russians know about and i think that is the evolution of the intersection with the mueller campaign and as avenatti said, let's wait and see. but i think that is --

>> let me add one more fact to the conversation. i remember when a access hollywood tape came out and the person in the room said the first person in the room wanted to know math. when it was and whether or not he was mar yid -- married to melania. and there were people in the room and all doing math. >> what year was i mayored? >> but if he was that afraid of melania finding out the year that he said that, it seems like anyone infinite amount of compromising information that the russians could have on him. >> let's put aside the taaside fa -- aside the fact he had to do math, for any good marriage. but he survived "access hollywood" and this election was a referendum on the tapes and his grotesque and vulgar language. they needed a nondisclosure agreement and hush money and needed to sign a contract and

agreement with stormy daniels in order to stop some facts from emerging from this. i think you're absolutely right. there is more to this and we're going to see it play out. and that is why i think there is -- as donna said, a very important intersection between mueller and what is happening on this issue. >> from the surreal to the sub lime. when we come back, it was the sound of silence heard around the world after a historic day in washington, the big question, what happens next? so that's the idea. what do you think? i don't like it. oh. nuh uh. yeah. ahhhhh. mm-mm. oh.

yeah. ah. agh. d-d-d... no. hmmm. uh... huh. yeah. uh... huh. in business, there are a lot of ways to say no. thank you so much. thank you. so we're doing it. yes. start saying yes to your company's best ideas. we help all types of businesses with money, tools and know-how to get business done. american express open.

one life is worth more than all of the guns in america.

>> this is not a red versus blue issue. this is a morals issue. >> we are not here for bread crumbs, we're here for real change. we're here to lead. we are here to call out every single politician -- >> it is time to stop judging youth that look like me or my brother that come from impoverishes communities any different than anyone else. it is time for america to notice that every day shootings are every day problems. >> it was an exclamation point. what is an overwhelmingly powerful movement. organizers for the march for lives rally estimate there were 800,000 people on the streets of d.c. on saturday. that is more than the population of the capitol itself. and that rally was just one of hundreds scattered across the country. on a day full of memorable moments one of the most impactful was by emma gonzalez.

she stood silently for the best -- the better of 6:20, the amount of time the shooter killed 17 people and injured others. and steve, you have a new book out called "big guns" and i will read from the new york times speech. you can stages and walkouts but then walk into the congressional districts that matter. in the end it is not standing up to be heard, it is about changing who sits in congress. what advice do you have for the kids to take the next step. >> they have to keep marching but in the right direction. as a national issue, doing marches in washington, god bless them or in new york city and in blue districts where you already have an in coup-- an in couple o will vote the right way, it is great to be on but go into competitive republican districts where they could be the difference between

somebody who consistently votes with the gun lobby and somebody who will not connistently vote with the gun lobby. >> and those could be democrats. >> i've looked at matrix. in every case even if you have a democrat that may vote with the nra 20% of the time you'll have a republican who votes with the nra 80% of the time. so this is not -- i would love to be able to say this is a bipartisan issue but it is not. the fact of the matter is that in the suburbs of philadelphia, in southern florida, in the suburbs of denver, in orange coun county, california, in the suburban communities that hillary clinton won, there are 25 congressional districts, these students can be the difference between a pro-nra incumbent and somebody who is not. and so my advice is be strategic. go to florida and not in flip-flops over summer vacation but to flip a district. >> i agree. and i think there are vulnerable republicans who are feeling that the -- the weight of everything we've been talking about this whole hour who could be made to get back on their heels on this question by this movement.

>> absolutely. steve is right. this is a partisan issue. the nra suchts republica-- the republicans and when it comes to issue of guns what the young people have done is three things. they have energized the left or those who vote on this issue and created a contrast for your information onnin depend voters or whether they think the nation is going in the right or wrong direction and they've created the contrast and beginning a generational change. the reality is republicans will do nothing if this is the issue that defined your i'd i ideology and it will change in november. >> and i met people from alabama and mississippi and florida. people who were energized and there with a group of students from prince george's county and great mills high school where there was a school shooting just last week and the greatest chance was vote them out and there were people registering them to vote. >> i've said is before. i think the nra and the

republicans have met their match. i think these kids are unbelievable. they inspire me. thanks to the panel. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts with my friend katy tur in the chair for chuck. >> it is so nice to have you back. >> don't leave. no more vacation. nicole, thank you very much. >> and if it is monday, what happens if the ring master loses control of the circus. tonight the stormy political environment. >> well the president doesn't believe that any of the claims that miss daniels made. >> the white house is hitting republicans at home. plus the u.s. takes the strongest stance yet against the kremlin. and spies among us. why were those now expelled russian intelligence officers here in the first place? this is "mtp daily" and it starts