daniels issue, even three days after her big "60 minutes" interview. >> as i just said and as we have addressed a number of times, the president has denied these allegations. i didn't have anything else further to add on that. and secret summit. kim jong-un takes a surprise trip out of north korea for a lavish meeting with china's president in what's believed to be his first trip outside of the country since taking power. >> the primary significance of the trip is that kim jong-un is now stepping outside of his comfort zone. >> we'll ask former secretary of state james baker about the significance of that trip when he joins andrea live just a few moments from now. good day, everyone. i'm kristin welker in washington. we'll turn to andrea and her big interview with former secretary of state and white house chief

of staff james baker in just a moment. but we do begyp with the latest legal threat to president trump. stormy daniels' attorney michael avenatti filing a motion in federal court seeking permission to depose the president and his personal lawyer, michael cohen. just days after daniels' "60 minut minutes" interview after an encounter with mr. trump. mr. avenatti made a case for putting the president under oath for public consumption. >> we're going to test the veracity or truthfulness of mr. cohen's, his attorney's, statement. we're confident, gayle -- when we get to the bottom of this we'll prove to the american people they've been told a bucket of lies. the other side is intending to endorse this case into a private ashization hidden from the public where the public doesn't really learn what happened. >> nbc news national correspondent, my friend and colleague, peter alexander at the white house right now.

we've been tracking this story for quite some time. there's been no reaction from the president this week. still no reaction from the white house to these latest developments as you and i both know, they want to turn the page on this whole controversy. what's the mood there? what are your sources telling you? >> i think you are exactly right. this president, this self-proclaimed counterpuncher has pulled his punches on this. we have yet to see him in the last days with a public event here at the white house. he was in florida over the weekend. but he knows in a moment like that, that he'd be pressed on this, the same way sara sander has been pressed by you, and our colleagues on this issue, which the white house has repeatedly denied speaking on behalf of the president. but he himself hasn't spoken to this issue right now. the hearing on this request is set for april 30th. the goal of michael avenatti is to keep this in the face of the

president, trying to depose him putting him ifn a position wher he could face other legal problems. bottom line as we hear repeatedly from this white house, this is not a topic they want to be focusing on right now. we are also hearing from the attorney for michael cohen, david schwartz, about this specifically saying it is a reckless uls of the legal system in order to inflate michael avenatti's inflated ego and keep himself relevant. this is politically motivated and people see through this charade. that's the latest on this, as we wait for the next shoe to drop. >> we certainly are waiting for the next shoe, peter. and we are learning in terms of the other legal issue the president's dealing with, the russia probe. there is a new attorney that's coming into new focus, someone who's been a part of the legal team with jay sekulow, ty cobb, but who's going to be more front and center. andrew economo is going to be a bigger player for now.

>> frankly, very few people know the details about this individual. he's 69 years old, a little known former prosecutor. he has a doctorate in medieval history that many people have found interesting. right now is playing a more prominent role. ty cobb leads the investigation. here in the white house they say he'll be stepping forward in effect, economo will, coming after the departure of john dowd just last week. it also comes as we've been watching president trump try to find a new top-tier white collar lawyer. ted olson declining. two other lawyers declining in the last two days as well. in those cases it's been a conflict of interest but for now this president's team appears to be a tight circle as we try to learn more details about this individual prosecutor taking a role. >> peter alexander, thanks for covering all those headlines. i'll see you back at the white

house in a shoert time. the other story we're following, the first foreign trip by kim jong-un since 2011. beijing rolled out the red carpet for the north korean leader. president xi wanted to make sure kim's first summit was with him. it had all the makings of a state visit. kim says he's open to a denuclearization and a summit with president trump. officials say that meeting could happen at the end of may. for that and much more, andrea mitchell, the host of this show, has a very special guest. take it away, andrea, in houston. thank you so much, kristen welker. i am here at rice university baker institute for public policy for their presidential campaign election forum. today's very special guest, the former secretary of state, former treasury secretary, former white house chief of staff in the reagan administration, james a. baker the third and founder of the baker institute. first of all, a summit. a summit with kim jong-un, the

first summit between a north korean leader and an american president, if it takes place. an we see overnight china's role in welcoming kim jong-un for what we believe to be his first foreign visit of all with all of the red carpets and the pomp and circumstance. what does this tell you about what china is trying to do here? >> well, i think they're doing what they ought to do, and that's staying close to their state, north korea. they've got a big interest in making sure a couple of things don't happen. one, they don't want a failed state there. they don't want a whole lot of refugees flowing across the border into china. and they don't want u.s. troops on their border. if would be the case of course if the united states and south korea ended up with a very friendly government there in north korea. so i think that china's doing

what china ought to do. but what i'm struck by, really, frankly, andrea, is that the united states and china both have a problem with the past behavior of north korea and kim jong-un. i mean china's not happy with the idea that they're going to have a heavily nuclear-armed korean peninsula right there on their border. they don't want to see that. we don't want to see that. so i think it's too bad that there wasn't some way that we could work with the chinese to achieve this, this result of denuclearization of the peninsula. china is the only country in the world that really has significant influence on north korea. but -- but, that's not the route we're going. we're going the route of negotiating with north korea. that's fine. i'm a great believer in diplomacy. i'm also a realist and i know what's happened since 1994.

we've seen the north koreans talk a lot but not do anything constructive by way of reducing their missiles and development of nuclear weapons. >> you're in the past someone who has prepared for big summits. this was so unprepared that the president just said, yes, i'll go, as the south koreans were preparing to brief him and make decisions on whether to go. >> well, i think the south koreans probably are pleased with this decision. they want to see us -- >> but should the president have waited and thought it through? >> you could make that argument. that certainly was the way we used to do things. but he's president. he's the decider. and so we are where we are. having said that, there is some chance, i suppose, that an agreement could be crafted that would provide for denuclearization on the korean peninsula. we ought to make sure we stick with that as our goal. that of course would require

extensive verification procedures on the ground, anywhere, be any time, any place type stuff. >> let me just ask you about the risks here. if he goes in with great expectations and it is way too complicated to have real results in the first meeting, what's the downside if he comes away and kim jong-un disappointed? >> downside you face in any decision you make in politician is wanting to always be able to exceed expectations. that's how you do well in politics. that's how some of the people i worked for, frankly, were so successful. everybody totally underestimated ronald reagan. but he exceeded expectation. but you don't want to fail to meet expectations. >> what about what you have here? >> if you fail here, you need to know, be prepared, what your next step is going to be. everybody knows the cataclysmic

consequences of a war on the korean peninsula in terms of loss of life. primarily korean loss of life. >> and the failure here would be going to a military option. >> well, we don't know whether it would mean that or not, but it is very likely that it could. i don't know the degree or extent to which we could take out north korea's nuclear capability. i'm told we could get the vast majority of it in a surgical strike type activity. but that's not a very good option, in my mind. and let's hope that somehow we find a breakthrough diplomatically. if i was in there, what i -- i would have sent some high-level enjoy to xi jinping, the president of china, that the chinese trust and have confidence in. i would say, look, you don't like what's going on in the korean peninsula, we don't like

what's going on. why don't we do something to stop it? the united states will support any government you install in north korea provided they repudiate the acquisition or maintenance of nuclear weapons. we will trade with that government. we will establish diplomatic relations. we will execute a peace treaty ending the korean war. we will do all of these things. your job is to put a government in place there that's different than this government and one that repudiates -- >> you're talking about regime change. >> yeah. well, that's what it would be. that the chinese are not happy. we're not happy. now this guy here is going to change his behavior and actually agree to denuclearization, or neither the united states or china are going to be happy. so at some point you'll get to the question of regime change. the only thing we would be asking china to do is take care of that change. and they're in a position to do

it. they're saying, oh, no, we can't do that, we don't have that kind of influence. i don't believe that. china controls everything that happens in north korea if they want to. they can cut off exports from the north koreans, so forth. >> let me ask you about russia. the president on one hand a week ago congratulates vladimir putin on a sham election in contradiction to his own advice, in big, bold capital letters, and doesn't bring up the fact that the kremlin tried to kill a former russian spy and his daughter on english soil with a nerve agent that's a band chemical weapon. even though he had been told to do that. and then a week later, we're expelling more spies at any time since the cold war. >> i think it's important to -- i think message discipline is really important in running a campaign or in running the white house. i think there could be an

improvement in this white house with message discipline. >> you think? >> needless to say. on the other hand, i will remind you that ronald reagan, for whom i worked for eight years, told the bureaucrats at one point when they told him don't say, mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. you'll create a terrible problem. he said listen, i'm president and that's what i'm going to say and he wrote it back in the speech. that turned out all right. >> let me turn to twitter. a president fires his secretary of state on twitter, and calls kim little rocket man. >> i thought that was humerus. >> how does that affect america's diplomacy and america's position in the world? are diplomats overseas don't know which president is going to be show up -- >> to be effective as secretary of state, you have to have the full support -- you have to be seen with the president, you're

in his lane, in his turf. secretary of state has to be supportive, protective and defended by the president if he's going to be effective. and i thought that firing rex tillerson that way was absolutely the wrong thing to do. i don't think -- i just think it's too bad that happened the way it did. i'm proud of rex for being willing to serve. i called him and told him that and i'm sorry that it ended the way it did. >> could you be secretary of state if the president's son-in-law is taking care of the middle east, china, mexico and the persian gulf? >> you need to make sure that the president, when he asked you to serve -- and this applies as well to secretary designee pompeo, that he wants you to in fact be his secretary of state in the way the statute calls for, that you're his primary foreign policy advisor and implementer, and that you're his

chief spokesman. and everybody in washington, as you know, wants a piece of the foreign policy turf. and you can't be an effective secretary of state unless the president empowers you and makes sure everybody else gets out of your turf. >> would you blow up the iran deal next month? >> i don't know. i was not -- i was not enamored with the result. i think blowing it up could be very problematic, and i'll tell you why. because i don't think that we're going to be able to -- i think what brought the iranians to the table -- an it was very effective -- were multi-lateral sanctions joined in by our western european allies. if they're not going to be there, if we blow up the deal, they're going to point to us. it is going to be really hard for us to continue sanctions or to enhance sanctions. if we don't, we might be able to get them to convince them, hey, look, you want to keep this agreement going? then let's get stronger sanctions. let's make sure they stay in

effect. >> if you were the new secretary of state, say mike pompeo gets confirmed, or john bolton as national security advisor, how do you be the chief foreign policy advisor, as you described it, with an insider like john bolton? >> john is an extraordinary bright guy. i gave him his first job, i think, in government in the first reagan term when i suggested that he find a spot in the white house counsel's office. he was very effective for us. he was effective in the first bush administration. controversial in the second bush administration. john has some very deeply held views, many of which i disagree with fundamentally. but i think -- i know he is a patriot and he's an extraordinarily able and capable public servant. now will he get along -- will he defer to the secretary of state

the way he should? the job he's now in is one of consensus and coordination, not too much one of articulating your own views, although you're free to express those to the president. time will tell. >> the president has apparently told some advisors that he doesn't need to have a chief of staff. john kelly seems to be on thin ice. you were chief of staff. how important is that role? >> i think it's pretty darn important because the white house is big, the administration is big. running an administration is not a lot different than running a political campaign for president. so you need organization. you need message discipline. you need procedures. you can't have everybody just running in any time they want to into the oval office. you had that at the beginning of the clinton administration and they corrected it, got control of it. i think john kelly's done a remarkable job in bringing some order and discipline to the white house. >> i got to ask you about

campaigns. you've got campaigns where we didn't even know -- none of us knew exactly what was going on. we knew there was russian meddling but not to the extent of social media and all. what would be the political impact of orchestrating the fire of robert mueller at this point? >> i think the political impact would be adverse for the president, clearly. i think if you don't have anything to hide, like some senator said -- can't remember which one it was -- you don't have anything to hide, act like it. why fire him? let him finish his investigation and conclude his report. now having said that, i agree with some of the things that i see coming out of the white house unattributed that many of those prosecutors are hard-line opponents of some of the things that i have believed in as a conservative republican. but i don't think you fire the special prosecutor.

you let him finish his job and -- because that's way our system works. we are, after all, a country of laws. >> james baker. thank you very much. thank you for your service. great to be with you again. kristen welker, back to you. is there andrea, fantastic interview. a lot of headlines from iran to russia, the special counsel investigation, even raising the specter of possibly regime change in north korea. andrea, we are going to check back in with you to break down some of those big headlines you just got. thank you so much. coming up, military option. angry that the trillion dollar spending bill didn't fund his border. is the president bringing in the big guns to face the problem, or at least pay for it? this is "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. because if you only want the best thing, you get the #1 thing.

directv is rated #1 in customer satisfaction over cable. switch now and get a $200 reward card. more for your thing. that's our thing. call 1.800.directv

sarge, i just got a tip. that'll crack this case wide open! turns out the prints at the crime scene- awwwww...did mcgruffy wuffy get a tippy wippy? i'm serious! we gotta move fast before- who's a good boy? is him a good boy? erg...i'm just gonna go. oh, you wanna go outside? you gotta go tinky poo-poo? i already went, ok? in the bathroom! as long as people talk baby-talk to dogs, you can count on geico saving folks money. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

and who's going to pay for the wall? who's going to pay for the wall? >> mexico! >> who's going to pay for the wall? >> mexico! >> isn't it true that mexico's not going to pay for that wall? >> i'm not going to go beyond what the president's already said. i think he still has plans to look at potential ways for that to happen. >> what way is he considering having mexico pay for the wall is this. >> when we have an announcement on that i'll let you know. >> not exactly a denial as we learn president trump's thinking of making mexico pay for his

long-promised border wall. instead he is considering the u.s. military picking up the tab. this comes as the president is privately fuming over the omnibus spending bill which lax sufficient spending for that wall. we know he got a lot of heat from his base. lonnie chen, research fellow at the hoover institution. josh ernest, former white house press secretary and msnbc political analyst. thanks to you both for being here. monty, this is one of president trump's signature campaign promises that mexico's going to pay for the border wall. we know he is now looking to u.s. taxpayers. he's infuriated by the omnibus. but is it realistic to have the military pay is it. >> i don't know if it is realistrealist ic but certainly from a political perspective, it is important -- >> in mexico pays. >> not that mexico pays, but there is some progress on the wall. i think people almost didn't take him literally there. the big question is can he make progress on the wall in order to

motivate the republican base going into the mid-term election. >> josh, your take on that. democrats have long said it is unrealistic. >> it isn't realistic. i think this is important to the republican base. i think any time you are in a situation to ask the 2kdepartme of defense to pay for something for political reasons, you're doing the wrong thing. >> let me play sound from the interview we all watched, andrea with james baker. listen to how he responded to a chief of staff. >> i think it is pretty darn important because the white house is big. the administration is big. running an administration is not a lot different than running a political campaign for president. so i need organization. you need message discipline. you need procedures. you need proprocesses. you can't have anybody you want to at any time running into the oval office. >> that question comes as the president's been mulling the idea, however seriously or not,

as potentially not having a chief of staff. does he need one? the president thinks he is his own best messenger. >> i think any president is going to be well served by having an empowered chief of staff. that's something that president trump actually never really has had. he's had somebody like john kelly who is well respected and somebody who has had more success in instilling some discipline on that organization. but president trump i think as even evidenced by the public speculation that he doesn't really need general kelly i think will undermine general kelly's ability to do that job. not empowering him will make him less successful. >> lonnie, josh raises an important point. has general kelly already been undermined by president trump, all of these rumors coming out of the white house that he's going, he's staying. how does that impact his effectiveness? >> it's been a very challenging environment. make no mistake general kelly brought order to a situation where there really was no order before. to secretary baker's point, that's extremely important.

the process drives a lot of that outcome. if you don't have a good process manager you'll be in deep trouble. so i think kelly has been very effective and i hope he will be able to do his job. because if he's not, the president's not going to get a whole lot more done. >> as we are watching, tracking a new scandal, stormy daniels seems to escalate by the day. today we woke up to the news that her attorney is now trying to have the president deposed. lonnie, big picture this for me. if you are a republican running in the mid-terms, how concerned are you about this headline, particularly when it comes to women voters? the white house says it is not going to have an impact. >> i actually don't think it has too much of an impact. i think they are looking at fundamentals like the economy. i think much more worrisome if i were a republican is not doing anything about obamacare. because that continues to be one of the chief motivating issues -- >> but obamacare hasn't been in headlines. these stormy headlines are sort of overwhelming the white house on a daily basis. >> but i don't think republicans voters are looking at that. i think they factor this in to

the president's behavior. this is who he is. we knew what they were getting into. i kind of think that's right. >> josh, peter alexander confirms your former boss is going to be out on the campaign trail in beverly hills campaigning for senator mccaskill. obviously she's running a very tough re-election campaign. what do you expect former president obama to play? how tough is he going to be about president trump? had. >> senator mccaskill is my home state senator so i have a vested interest. she's somebody that's been counted out before. i would say that a tough race in the fall. republicans who underestimate her do so at their own peril. this is in terms of president obama's ability to raise money for her, this is the prince -- this is among the most significant contributions he can make in the mid-terms. he can raise a lot off money. i do think president obama's trying to walk a fine line here. he does not want to be the dominant figure on the

democratic side in the mid-term election so he wants to pick and choose his spots to make an impact on some of these key races. certainly raising a million or two dollars for senator mccaskill is one important way he can benefit her and benefit democrats without, frankly, dominating the debate. >> great conversation, josh ernest, lonnie chen. the supreme court hearing a case today which could have major implications on how states draw up districts.

you may be at increased risk for pneumococcal pneumonia, that can take you out of the game for weeks, even if you're healthy. pneumococcal pneumonia is a potentially serious bacterial lung disease that in severe cases can lead to hospitalization. it may hit quickly, without warning, causing you to miss out on the things you enjoy most. prevnar 13® is not a treatment for pneumococcal pneumonia... it's a vaccine you can get to help protect against it. prevnar 13® is approved for adults to help prevent infections from 13 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. you should not receive prevnar 13® if you have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. if you have a weakened immune system, you may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects were pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, limited arm movement, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, less appetite, vomiting,

fever, chills, and rash. help protect yourself against pneumococcal pneumonia. ask your doctor or pharmacist about prevnar 13®. with pg&e in the sierras. and i'm an arborist since the onset of the drought, more than 129 million trees have died in california. pg&e prunes and removes over a million trees every year to ensure that hazardous trees can't impact power lines. and since the onset of the drought we've doubled our efforts. i grew up in the forests out in this area and honestly it's heartbreaking to see all these trees dying. what guides me is ensuring that the public is going to be safer and that these forests can be sustained and enjoyed by the community in the future.

the supreme court could be on the brink of an historic change in the way the country conducts elections. today justices heard arguments in a high-profile partisan gerrymandering case, a challenge brought by republicans in maryland who say democrats intentionally carved up a congressional district to get an electoral edge. it is the second case this term that examines whether it is unconstitutional for states to draw boundary lines for voting districts in a blatantly partisan manner. nbc news justice correspondent pete williams joins me now from the supreme court. pete, i know you've been tracking this. this is, frankly, an issue that democrats and republicans have

had. but this case is being brought by republicans, so what are the implications and how likely are they to prevail, do you think? >> let me tell you what happened in the argument here today. gerrymandering is always done by the majority party and they always do it to help themselves. and the supreme court has never said that's unconstitutional. so the question is when would it cross a constitutional line. now the republican challengers from maryland say it crosses the line in this case in redrawing the sixth district which has been held for 20 years by a republican named roscoe bartlett. in 2011 the state intentionally drew it to give the democrats that seat. the challengers say that violates the first amendment because it punishes them for their political views supporting a republican candidate in the past. so one question is how can you tell when there's too much partisanship. and on that, a majority of the supreme court seems today to say it is pretty clear that there was too much partisanship in this case.

justice elena kagan said the question is always how much is too much. this she said is too much. justice stephen breyer seemed to agree saying that's true but when are we going to have a case that's this clear? that is the second problem. if you decide it is unconstitutional to have acceptably partisan gerrymandering, then what do you do about it? what is the test. that's where the supreme court majority seemed to be struggling today just as samuel alito says once you open that door, then you are going to get the courts involved in every legislative redistricting unless partisanship is never an issue. that doesn't seem very practical. you mentioned the fact the supreme court heard the wisconsin case in october. we assume that they were holding a decision for that case until they heard the maryland case. well, it didn't seem from today's argument that they're any closer to finding that answer, that test for deciding when partisanship because too

much, so blatant that it is unconstitutional. they seem to say that maryland has gone too far but unsure what to do about it. >> fascinating case that could have major implications for our political system. pete williams, thank you for tracking all of the developments from the supreme court. really appreciate it. and coming up -- under oath? could the lawyer for stormy daniels really call the president of the united states into court? one of the country's leading constitutional experts joins us next right here on "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information

has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. my bladder leakage was making me feel like i couldn't spend time with my grandson. now depend fit-flex has their fastest absorbing material inside, so it keeps me dry and protected. go to depend.com - get a coupon and try them for yourself.

parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply. that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks,

so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long. when you see some of the lowest options fees in the market and no platform fees? is it happy? good. then it's time for power e*trade.

the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. e*trade. the original place to invest online. you mentioned clinton versus paula jones in your motion. why is that relevant? >> well, it is the supreme court precedent. the supreme court already decided that a sitting president can be deposed in connection with a civil matter. if that was the law then, it certainly is the law now. it hasn't been overturned. >> that's stormy daniels' attorney defending his decision to file a motion in federal court to depose president trump and michael cohen, his attorney, a potential big legal problem for mr. trump and his presidency. professor hassen is the author of "the justice of

contradictions." andr andrew, thanks for being here. we've been looking at a number of potential legal cases against president, including one by some observers, a former contestant on "the apprentice." a lot of people thought she had a real case. she is accusing him of sexual misconduct. but now you have stormy daniels giving that bombshell interview on "60 minutes" and her lawyer overnight, michael avenatti, trying to get the president to be deposed. do you think they're going to be if effective? >> well, the threshold question is going to be whether or not this case remains in court. you may remember that this whole thing is potentially going back to a private arbitration where we won't know what's going on. there is a reasonable chance that the federal court says, tho, thth this case goes to arbitration. all the claims you've got are going to be handled privately. he has to get over that threshold. a federal court is going to actually hear the case. then the paula jones case which stormy daniels' lawyer pointed

to does say that the president can be deposed, but it also says that you've got to work around the president's schedule and you have to be very flexible in terms of how these things go. we're a lot of steps away from president trump being put under oath and asked all these questions about this. >> you point to paula jones, and of course that's the crux of this argument, that former president bill clinton was deposed and that he purr jerjur himself and that ultimately led to his impeachment. how dangerous is it for president trump to be deposed, even if it is several months or years away? >> i think it is very dangerous for any president who is involved in a controversy to be deposed, especially here by a private party that you know is quite adverse and very aggressive. the president is known as someone who's said a lot of things that are not always found to be true, and so it would be very dangerous. but i'm not so sure that's actually going to happen. >> picking up on that point, you

talk about the fact that we are looking at a time factor here. couldn't the president and his legal team throw everything they have at this and just essentially refuse for the president to sit for deposition? >> of course, the difference here is that it was trump's ally that's actually brought the suit against stormy daniels. remember, he tried to get that temporary restraining order and got that order from the arbitrator. then you had daniels go to state court. then trump's lawyers move it to federal court. so unlike a case like bill clinton where clinton didn't want to be involved in this, he was just a defendant, here you have action by the president to try and get some relief either from the arbitrator or from the court. if that happens, it is harder to argue, well, i'm too businey, i don't have time. we know the president does have a lot of extra time on his hands. we can see he is on twitter around we know about the executive time, so it is going to be less credible to argue he's just too busy handling affairs of state to be able to sit for two hours. >> fascinating insights, rick

hasen, really appreciate it. coming up next, protecting a prosecutor. why are senate leaders making new moves to keep the president from firing special counsel robert mueller. this is "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. we're also leading water projects in more than 100 communities. and for every drop we use... we're working to give one back. because our products rely on the same thing as we all do... clean water. and we care about it like our business depends on it. with its historical ance records...test ...you could learn you're from ireland... ...donegal, ireland... ...and your ancestor was a fisherman. with blue eyes. just like you. begin your journey at ancestry.com

(vo)just one touch.ith with fancy feast creamy delights, she can have just the right touch of real milk. easily digestible, it makes her favorite entrées even more delightful. fancy feast creamy delights. love is in the details.

i don't think you fire the special prosecutor. you let him finish his job and -- because that's the way our system works. we are, after all, a country of laws. >> that is former secretary of state james baker telling andrea just a short time ago that there would be an adverse political impact if the president orchestrated the firing of special counsel robert mueller. let's get the inside scoop from our own andrea mitchell who is back. white house bureau chief. and msnbc political analyst phil rucker. and betty woodruff, politics reporter for the daily beast and msnbc contributor. andrea, you asked james baker that question. he had that fascinating answer, very strongly worded. it comes as we are learning that a group of nine senators sent a letter to the department of justice asking them to protect mueller. how much concern is there on capitol hill, throughout washington, that there is a real

possibility? >> i think there is a lot of concern because of the recess. there's been no movement at all by the leadership on the republican side to put that bipartisan legislation that was put forward. it is bipartisan and there are a number of republican senators who would support it but it's gotten nowhere on the hill. but now in recess, there is some real concern especially because of some guidelines sent up and down the line to members of the high officials from the department of justice from attorney general jeff sessions that seemed to be perhaps a warning signal that something could be afoot, wihich would of course start with rosenstein and move on down. >> what did you think of baker's response? he certainly was firm that mueller shouldn't be removed. he also said that he did have some concerns about different aspects of this investigation. >> i think a lot of people, conservative republicans like jim baker, have concerned about some aspects of the

investigation. and white house -- he is a former chief of staff -- have traditionally been concerned about special prosecutors or independent counsels, in this case. but the question is now that it and that as one said earlier, if you're not guilty, you have nothing to hide, why push back so hard? i think that's a strong signal tr him. stronger signals from current elected officials, republicans as well as democrats, about how catastrophic the mueller firing would be. that said, the leadership is is really not shown any strength on this because they won't let the issue come forward. >> betsy, let me bring you into this conversation. the former deputy campaign chair now under a new microscope. he's already embroiled in the russia probe. but for having contact in 2016 with the russian intelligence officer who he knew was a russian intelligence officer. what can you tell us about this?

>> this revelation comes from court filings that robert mueller's team filed. what's important to remember is they don't actually name the individual with the alleged ties to russian intelligence, but we can infer with a high degree of confidence they are talking about a person who was a russian national who worked with paul manafort and rick gates operating in ukraine. he's gone on the record saying he actually did not have ties to russian intelligence. that's his position. although he hasn't, to my knowledge, mae made comments sie the filing came can out. it says the fbi has reason to believe he had ties to russian intelligence. this isn't just base. ed on what we have been a i believe to gather through reporting. this is robert mueller saying the fbi concluded that one of paul manafort's business partners could have been a russian spy. >> it's another sign that the

russia probe continues to intensify by the day, phil. let me turn to you now. we haven't is heard from the president as we have gotten this new report or the stormy daniels koef controversy, which has been escalating by the day. the president has been noticeably quiet. what are sources telling you about the strategy by the president? >> that's exactly right. i think it's important to point out the difference between the public trump and private trump. publicly, he's been very quiet about stormy daniels the last few days. he said nothing. he's also had no media appearances where there's been an opportunity for reporters to ask him a question. but privately, he's talking about this. he's following the news coverage very closely. he's bothered by the stormy daniels saga. he feels like he has done nothing wrong and has been telling friends and confidants that these accusations are talls. he's even said that stormy daniels is not the kind of woman he finds attractive, but he's not said that publicly, but we know, as with the mueller case, these controversies surrounding him really both. er him and get under his skin.

>> andrea, speaking of the messaging coming out of the white house, you asked baker about that. i want to play some sound is and then get your reaction on the other side. >> i think it's important to -- message discipline is really important. there could be an improvement in this white house with discipline. >> your takeaway from that? >> i think that that criticism from a former chief of staff who ran the white house like clockwork is really a strong signal. and i think they know that. they know that. phil is a lot closer to it than i, but you're going to see a change. you're going to see a new communications director. i would prekelli ann conway in that role and she would bring that strategic skill to the

daily messaging. one wonders why don't don't do something easy on infrastructure with the close area around washington, d.c. you could do a lot on sub wways and bridges and rail lines. there's just a lack of focus on what they want to do each day and this is often derailed by twitter. by. the president's own message. >> indeed. andrea brings up the point that kellyanne con way has gotten a lot of buzz. someone who is is in a league of her own when it comes to a role in this white house being close to the president and saying no to this president. how important that the president put someone in that position quickly or do you expect that he's not going to move very quickly? >> it's very important. i expect he will move relatively quickly. we may not have ab announcement by the end of this week, but i assume we'll have one in short

order. the communications director job is an important one for president trump. it is any any way, but especially for trump. he lives and dies by the media every day, as you know. and kellyanne conway has edadvid him on messaging and what he should say in public. he admires the work that she's done as a surrogate and her work in the media. so i think it would be a natural step for her ton the communications director. she's currently a counsellor with a lot of policy correspondents as well on opioids and other issues. >> we're talking about the communications drrkt. the chief of staff has come under a microscope. a lot of people wondering will he stay or go. what are you hearing about that? >> there's been withering criticism at this point it's unsafe to say whether a decision has been made by the president. but one thing we know is is chief of staff kelly generated a lot of enemies in the white house. there's a number of people who are always looking for opportunities to leak damaging

material about him. and as long as those leaks continue, it's going to be a strong can't cater his enemies have not quelled their venom. one thing about kellyanne conway is she's doing work on opioids. if she were to leave that post, the white house would face a lot of criticism for having a vacancy there. >> thank you so much. more ahead. this is "andrea mitchell reports," only on msnbc. trouble. - learning from him is great... when i can keep up! - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. - she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life. he gets the best deal on the perfect hotel by using. tripadvisor!

that's because tripadvisor lets you start your trip on the right foot... by comparing prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. saving you up to 30%! you'll be bathing in savings! tripadvisor. check the latest reviews and lowest prices.

this is frank. sup! this is frank's favorite record. this is frank's dog. and this is frank's record shop. frank knowns northern soul, but how to set up a limited liability company... what's that mean? not so much. so he turned to his friends at legalzoom. yup! they hooked me up. we helped with his llc, contracts, and some other stuff that's part of running a business. so frank can focus on the beat. you hear that? this is frank's record shop. and this is where life meets legal.

that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports". remember to follow the show online on facebook and on twitter. craig melvin, my pal and friend and colleague is up next here on msnbc. good to see you. >> good to see you. i'm well. thank you so much. good afternoon to you. craig melvin here at msnbc head quarters in new york city. best defense as president trump's legal fight grows, so does his team. the new demand from stormy daniels returning to depose the president under oath and the vir yulely unknown lawyer about to take on a much bigger role defending the president. also historic change shs the supreme court just heard arguments in a acase that could change the voting system. i'll talk to the governor whose comments about redrawing congressional districts to win votes could help potentially end gerrymandering in this country. and demanding action, the calls for change and protests at city hall in sacramentoft