nicolle wallace starts right now. >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. we start with breaking news from "the new york times" this afternoon. jaw-dropping revelations about the president's lawyer in discussions with the attorneys representing mike flynn and paul manafort about pardons last summer before both men were indicted and before mike flynn pleaded guilty. the report may also offer insight into just what kinds of questions bob mueller is asking witnesses about whether the president may have obstructed justice. from the times report, quote, trump's lawyer raised prospect of pardons for flynn and manafort as special counsel closed in. the five reporter team writing, quote, the talk suggests that mr. trump's lawyers were concerned about what mr. flynn and mr. manafort might reveal were they to cut a deal with the special counsel robert s. mueller in exchange for leniency. mr. mueller's team could investigate the prospect of

mr. dowd made pardon offers to thwart the inquiry, although legal experts are divided about whether such offers might constitute obstruction of justice. we're going to dive into that very question with one of the journalist whose shares a by line on this report as well as two of our smartest national security and justice analysts. "the new york times" investigative correspondent mark joins us. jeremy bash, former chief of staff at the cia and pentagon now an msnbc analyst. and frank fa glues i, former fbi assistant for counter intelligence and also msnbc analyst. here to help us break this down. mark, let's start with your state your naming reporti stunning reporting and the significance it represents in the potential object strustruct justice case we all understand bob mueller to be contemplating at least. >> what we reported was that last year john dowd, until recently was a lawyer for president trump, reached out to

the lawyers for both manafort and flynn. and at least broached the subject of a possible pardon for both men. this happened before flynn cut a deal with mueller and before manafort was indicted by mueller. and the significance is potentially if mueller were able to make it part of an obstruction case if he were to try to argue that these offers or the subject was brought up in exchange for getting the two guys not to cooperate with mueller. in other words, you can get a pardon and don't cut a deal with mueller. now, we say in our story we're not sure that is the case and we don't know exactly what president trump knew. but it certainly is significant in that this subject was broached with the two lawyers. >> and i want to read another poll from the piece. you report that during interviews with mr. mueller's investigators in recent months, current and former administration officials have recounted conversations that they had with the president about potential pardons for

former aides under investigation by the special counsel according to two people briefed on the interview. i'm not going to ask you to name any names, but let's just throw out there some current and former administration officials who we know, your paper and others have reported to have been before the special counsel. that would be people like reince priebus, perhaps steve bannon, perhaps don mcgahn, perhaps hope hicks, countless people have now gone into bob mueller's investigators' room and the fact that they have been asked questions about the president contemplating pardons for former aides under investigation by the special counsel. certainly suggests that the obstruction of justice investigation is alive and well. >> as we reported, this has come up in interviews. mullers' group has asked about these conversations. we also report in the story that

the subject did come up last year when president trump asked the white house counsel's office about the powers that he has to pardon. so, this is something that's been in the discussion, it's been in the atmosphere about whether trump would pardon flynn, manafort and possibly others. but you're right, the fact that mueller's investigators have asked about the subject and it's been a discussion in some of these witness interviews indicates that this is an open line of questioning for mueller's team. >> you're going to stay with us. we snared you in for the whole block. i want to bring jeremy bash in on this. jeremy, you and i toggle back and forth in our discussions about the obstruction of justice investigation, the collusion or conspiracy investigation. i want to ask you to put the developments as reported in "the new york times" that in interviews with bob mueller's investigators that are ongoing, witnesses are coming out and recounting at least to their lawyers or -- i don't make any assumptions who the sources are

for "the new york times." they are being asked questions, and i reported yesterday, an attorney representing a witness said, they have been told their witnesses and all the questions are about trump's conduct in office. that certainly is consistent with what the times is reporting, that bob mueller wants to know more about the president's conduct in office as it pertains to mike flynn, as it pertains to the -- his firing, his guilty plea. and we now know from the times reporting that somebody was open to pardoning him before he pleaded guilty. >> yeah, i think it's significant, nicolle, that mueller wants to know not just about the president's conduct, but in fact about his state of mind. i think mueller wants to understand is the president, in effect, acting guilty. is he presuming that information will make him seem culpable, that when these witnesses come forward they'll put the president in a bad light, in bad standing with respect to the special counsel's investigation. and as president, does he want to dangle the idea of a full

pardon or commutation or some other way to kind of get these people out of hot water. usually in a process, nicolle, you know this well, when a president considers the awesome power of the pardon which is in the constitution, usually the person goes through the -- the defendant goes through the entire justice department system, is convicted or pleads guilty, is sentenced, and then and only then does the president consider a pardon. for a president to think about it preemptively really shows he's trying to get ahead of the investigation and get out of its way. >> and let's just pause here on mike flynn. he has been the president's kryptonite since go. the daily beast reported, has he turned on me, the president wondered about his former national security advisor. he pleaded guilty after that. let's watch the president, though, in december sort of openly musing about the possibility of pardoning mike flynn. >> about michael flynn, would you consider a pardon for michael flynn?

>> i don't want to talk about pardons for michael flynn yet. we'll see what happens. let's see. i can say this. when you look at what's gone on with the fbi and with the justice department, people are very, very angry. >> frank fa glues i, this seems to connect the dots in the president's firing of jim comey, the president's enthusiasm for the firing of andrew mccabe. the president certainly has laid the foundation in tweet after tweet in news cycle after news cycle, in coordination with fox news night after night, to have a narrative already established for what he just described, pardoning mike flynn. >> so, we all have seen the public proffer of the possibility of a pardon sending subtle messages. now with this reporting today we see a far more direct approach to people while they're in the grand jury process. and as jeremy said, you usually talk pardon after you've been convicted, after the process is

over. so, a couple thoughts. one is it's really hard to imagine a scenario where the president's attorneys did this without his knowledge and consent, and number two, it's hard to imagine a scenario where this is not about an intent to silence witnesses from cooperating. and i'm sure that mueller's asking these questions because he knows it happened and he needs to establish further evidence of intent to obstruct. >> mark, i didn't want to put you in the position i'm going to analyze your own reporting, but let me go back to the report itself. you quote a duke law professor. it could be used against the president in an obstruction case if prosecutors want to demonstrate it was part of a larger conspiracy to impede the special counsel investigation. can you talk about that a little bit more for us? >> right. as we say, we reached out to several legal experts to get their opinion on the significance of this. and as jeremy said, pardon powers in the constitution and

some people see it as absolute. the president can pardon whomever he wants. but what this professor was saying is that, hold on. if you are doing this or raising the prospect of a pardon somehow to thwart the investigation, then your pardon power is not absolute and then that could be used as part of an object strst of justice case. it is dividing the legal community about this. of course we would have to know all the facts, but it is certainly some of those we spoke to said that, you know, in the context of the timing that mueller is building a case against these two people, the fact of the prospect of a pardon was raised is significant and potentially perilous for mr. trump. >> jeremy bash, a former senior justice department official that i reached out to after i read this story said to me, if the president is offering pardons to witnesses in an attempt to buy out their testimony, it's illegal. that seems to be an even clearer

distillation of what mark's reporting demonstrates. >> unfortunately, i'm not sure i agree with that. i mean, it's shapeful. it's unpatriotful, it's inappropriate. i'm not sure it's illegal for the following reason. in the constitution the only thing that trumps the pardon power is impeachment. so, congress could decide they want to impeach and remove a president from office for improperly using his pardon power. i'm not sure there are checks and limits on the president's ability to extend pardon to individuals in the criminal system. to the extent mueller is going to use it, it will be mood music for his state of mind but not the case in chief on obstruction against the president. >> frank, take us inside how this news lands inside a special counsel investigation into potential obstruction of justice and conspiracy to collude with the russians as i understand collusion wouldn't be a crime that bob mueller's investigators would be investigating because it isn't a crime, as you and

jeremy have told me over and over again. tell me, they obviously knew about this before it became public because we know from the times reporting that this was a line of questioning for witnesses. does it suggest any legal exposure for mr. dowd? could he be someone who is now of interest to the special counsel? would they be interested in knowing if he was dangling these potential pardons in front of known witnesses? and i guess by last summer, perhaps known targets of mueller's probe, does mr. dowd have anything to worry about legally? >> yeah, this gets very complicated, as you know, when you're talking about executive privilege, attorney/client privilege, all of this comes into play. i can tell you from knowing how mueller operates and how his team sets out on a mission is they won't be stymied by those concerns. they'll do it right, but they may indeed look at criminal exposure for dowd if they have supporting evidence that this was all about the intent to

obstruct, and not merely, hey, you've asked us about a pardon. here's how a pardon would work. but understand they've got sources and methods that we don't -- we aren't privy to right now. my guess is those sources and methods are telling them this probably was about obstruction. and if that's true, if that's true, we could see dowd exposed criminally. >> i want to bring everyone back in time because this is reporting about conversations that took place between mr. dowd and the attorney who was then representing paul manafort, who i believe is no longer his counsel. is that right, mark? >> that's right. >> and the attorney who represented mike flynn. you talked before about mike flynn being kryptonite. let's watch, let's go back and watch one of the sort of original sins under scrutiny. the firing of jim comey, we have some questioning of jim comey about the president pressuring him to see to it to let mike

flynn go. let's watch that again. >> i hope this is the president speaking. i hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting flynn go. he is a good guy. i hope you can let this go. now, those are his exact words. is that correct? >> i took it as a direction. this is the president of the united states with me alone saying, i hope this. i took it as, this is what he wants me to do. i didn't obey that, but that's the way i took it. >> this is going to be a jump. let me add one more data point here. the president subsequently tweeted, mike flynn should ask for immunity and this is a witch hunt. excuse for big election loss by media and dems of historic proportion. he spent a lot of time stitching together a very intricate narrative to cover up what jim comey just described. mark, how do you see your piece and your reporting today about the pardon conversations fitting into the larger picture that thanks in large part to you and

your colleagues' reporting, we now understand? >> i think you're right that if you walk it back, so much of the origins of this goes back to flynn. the idea that flynn is caught lying to the fbi. he is fired. and immediately president trump is trying to get the fbi to drop the case against flynn. and it is something that he's concerned about. it's something his lawyers are concerned about. and ultimately it plays into the firing of comey, and then you have comey's testimony that he tried to get him to drop the investigation. and now you have this reporting that last summer the president's lawyer was raising the possibility to flynn's lawyer that he could get a pardon. so, it goes back to this question of is there concern among the president's lawyers about what michael flynn or -- and/or paul manafort might have to tell the special counsel. and since flynn is actually cut a deal and is talking, that's

even greater concern. >> jeremy bash, if you were here you'd see the pages and scraps of notes all over the table. i want you to pull all this together for us, the significance of today's story, this sort of time we've spent in the time capsule going back to mike flynn as kryptonite as sort of the question of the investigation into flynn being the rupture with comey and the idea that his lawyer, we know from the times reporting today, dangled pardons in front of him and paul manafort. >> yeah, nicolle, i mean this is kind of a mind blowing moment. for the first time i think in history, you have the president talking about pardoning individuals so they would not testify against him in a national security probe about whether the president engaged in a conspiracy with an adversary to undermine the u.s. election. we have to keep coming back to that fund amount 58 point. th -- fundamental point. this is at the heart of our democracy. the president is going to go so

far as to use his awesome constitutional power to shut witnesses up, it shows you just how far the president believes he's in trouble. >> frank, let me give you the last word in this part of the conversation. we haven't spent as much time talking about paul manafort. paul manafort has not entered into any sort of agreement with bob mueller. there is an ongoing debate about why that might be, whether he's simply not that useful or whether he's -- there are lots of theories. you had some of the best ones. talk about the significance of a pardon for paul manafort who it seems like every month the special counsel has more charges to add to his many. >> well, we've all been kind of scratching our head, right, on why manafort is holding out, holding out, not cooperating. this could shed significant light, at least in part, on why he's just not playing ball. he's holding out perhaps for the reality of the hope of a pardon. this may have been directly dangled in front of him and he may have said, that's going to happen. i'm in for the long haul.

but it's quite the gamble. if you're on mueller's team, you're saying, we've got to undermine an attack that promise of a pardon because we're going to call it obstruction and we're going to free up manafort and say you're hoping for something that is illegal. it's not going to happen. it's a fascinating thing to watch, but it may explain why manafort is holding out. >> mark, congratulations to you, your colleagues. michael schmidt and adam goldman, a couple of them, our colleagues here at msnbc. we thank you for your reporting. when we come back we turn to the collusion case that special counsel bob mueller may be closing in on. we'll show you what one reporter describes as the most direct line to date between russian intelligence and trump associates. also ahead, i did not have sexual relations with that woman, stormy daniels. we'll delve into the danger of deposition ands sex scandals. and more on today's breaking news on those discussions about pardons for mike flynn and paul manafort. stay with us.

before i had the shooting, burning, pins-and-needles of diabetic nerve pain, these feet... grew into a free-wheeling a kid...

loved every step of fatherhood... and made old cars good as new. but i couldn't bear my diabetic nerve pain any longer, so i talked to my doctor and he prescribed lyrica. nerve damage from diabetes causes diabetic nerve pain. lyrica is fda approved to treat this pain, from moderate to even severe diabetic nerve pain. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs, and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. now i have less diabetic nerve pain. and i love smoothing the road ahead for others. ask your doctor about lyrica.

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

we're following breaking news on bob mueller's obstruction of justice investigation perhaps growing more perilous for the president with each passing day. we are also learning more today about the collusion piece of the probe as aaron blake from the washington post writes, mueller just drew his most direct line to date between the trump campaign and russia. according to new court filings from mueller's team around the sen tensioning of a cooperating witness, trump campaign chairman paul manafort was in contact during the campaign with an associate who has ties to russian military intelligence. and had those ties in 2016. aaron blake writes, what is

particularly significant in the mueller filing are those six words, and had such ties in 2016. prosecutors had said previously that a long-time manafort and gates associate had ties to russian intel, but they had never said those ties remained in place during the 2016 campaign. joining us at the table nick, "the new york times" political reporter and msnbc contributor, and elise jordan, former aide in the bush white house now time magazine columnist and msnbc analyst. jeremy and frank are still on board. frank, let me start with you. with your analysis in terms of the significance in the investigation of this revelation, in this reporting. >> look, this is significant because now if this is all accurate and it certainly appears to be because it's in sentencing documents, we've got a situation where a known or suspected or people -- somebody people believed to be a known or suspected russian intelligence officer, specifically a military russian intelligence officer,

was associated with manafort and ran manafort's kiev office for ten years and was known by them to be affiliated with russian intelligence service. in fact, he said that gates told him this guy is russian g.r.u. that is something we're seeing van der slice lied about to mueller in communications. it's somebody that told van der slice to yuzuse encrypted communications. we have mueller saying these lies are pertinent to my investigation, investigation of what? russia and its involvement in the campaign and collusion. this is a big deal. >> sometimes i feel like i'm in some -- like in a newscast in the onion. we're talking about an attorney from skadden, his name is van der swan. we're talking about his sentencing documents. what you're saying is we "world

news now," and it's all public because it's in mueller's sentencing court filings, that paul manafort, one-time chairman of the trump campaign, his deputy rick gates, remained in trump's good graces and in the inner circle of the entire west wing staff and rnc staff until he was charged. and i guess roger stone now, based on his ties to gucifer, they were all in regular contact with russian intelligence, is that what you're saying? >> yeah, look, there is an old saying in counter intel work. once gru always gru. if this guy is gru he might be retired. he's not talking on tv like me. what he's doing is assisting with what might be manafort's campaign efforts. >> i worked on a lot of campaigns and i couldn't define gru were a gun to my head. jeremy bash, john brennan's testimony about a year now about witting and/or unwitting coordination between the trump

campaign and the russians was something to be concerned about. let's watch it again and see if it rings any differently in light of the court filing that frank just described. >> by the time i left office on january 20th, i had unresolved questions in my mind as to whether or not the russians had been successful in getting u.s. persons involved in the campaign or not to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion. >> do we have the answer now? do we now know? >> well, we don't know yet. i mean, papadopoulos may have been potentially unwitting if he didn't know about that russian or that professor's connections to russian intelligence. i think with regard to manafort and gates, you know, i think frank has a point here, which is they were working with this guy as a very close business colleague for about a decade and throughout that time they knew that he had ties, kill em nick had ties to the russian intelligence entity, g.r.u..

the same entity against whom there is no criminal charges by bob mueller, against whom there are united states sanctions and united states intelligence community assessment has said that entity was the entity that quarterbacked russian interference in the 2016 election. again, on this show, on "deadline white house," we don't use the word collusion. we always say conspiracy because that's the criminal issue. a conspiracy is a an agreement and overt act. we know there is an agreement and potential overt act between papadopoulos and his russian buddy about -- during hillary clinton. we know about the trump tower meeting, roger stone, and gucifer and wikileaks. we know there is a way for there to be an agreement an overt act between manafort and russian intelligence agents. we don't know whether they undertook something to interfere in the 2016 election. >> elise, i'm going to show you something jeremy said on this show that blew my mind and had me water. let's watch. >> it's possible russia actually sent and dispatched paul

manafort to the trump campaign, or at least that once paul manafort attached himself to the trump campaign, the russians said, okay, our agent is now on the inside. and they tried to mandalay bipue campaign not just through propaganda and russia today, but through influence -- >> wait, wait. are you saying it's possible that they're going to want to find out if manafort was a russian plant? is that one of the questions the investigation is going to try to answer? >> absolutely. >> so, you know i love you, jeremy bash. i thought you were cray-cray when you said that. it doesn't sound crazy now. >> it holds up really well. so, what i found so interesting about this particular element of the investigation, i spoke today with a democracy promotion activist who worked in the ukraine and former soviet states during this time frame, and constantine ka little elm nick is a known quantity. everyone knew he was former g.r.u. and there was an element of shadiness --

>> manafort aide -- >> this is a manafort aide. he wasn't able to get work with, say, i.r.i. after a certain time period. he wasn't able to work with the officially sanctioned organizations over there. and he transitioned over into paul manafort's world. so, from the get-go, when the rnc platform committee change happened, when paul manafort became -- >> became more friendly to russian foreign policy. >> yes, constantine known as k.k. came to the u.s. and visited with paul manafort, democracy had their antenna up. >> they saw this coming. this is now obviously well known to bob mueller. we learned about it in the charging documents for a dutch lawyer. do you think that we give the collusion investigation a sho short -- how we talk about it, the k.k., g.r.u., dee minds me

of -- do we give short trip and are we ignoring what is right in front of our eyes, that collusion is now established between the trump campaign and the russians, and that this development is simply making that collusion more likely a conspiracy and it was between the top representative of the president's campaign and known russian intelligence officials? >> the key open question is whether there was a quid pro quo. if you guys do this, we'll do this. but look at the pattern so far. here's the list of people who had direct, or indirect connection to russian assets to the russian world. kushner, manafort, gates, stone, papadopoulos, don, jr., flynn, erik prince. page. this is like having a corner office in trump h.q. can you imagine any other campaign you can think of -- >> there are more people on that list who talk to russians than west wing staffers with security clearances who worked on the campaign. >> true. this is a dense web of contact. yes, it does matter what was

arranged, what can be proven about agreements and discussions. but, look, the collusion, the discussion is there. >> it's established. >> it's there. >> and tie this into -- you've been covering cambridge analytica, we're on the breaking news today about pardons. cambridge analytica was run by inside the campaign by steve bannon and jared kushner. so, if we find out that there were ties there to russians, if they were directing, that seems to me to be more people to add to your list and more examples and more behaviors and activities that were done in coordination. >> absolutely. we know alexander, the ceo of cambridge analytica reached out to wikileaks to get stolen e-mails from hillary clinton. the russian-american researcher who helped c.a. get the facebook data several years ago also had appointments in russia and contacts were in russia. beyond that it's speculation. but there is certainly a lot for

mueller to look at in terms of who used that data, who had access to it, who are clients that cambridge analytica had in russia. we have documents that show they claimed clients in russia. every time we asked them about that, they say that was an exaggeration, that was 30 years ago. they constantly do that so it's hard to know what's real and a lie in self-promotion. >> take us back inside mueller's investigation and really sort of pull into focus for us all these strings we've been talking about, your reporting on the three russian -- the g.r.u. which is now part of my vocabulary -- >> k.k. >> k.k. part of the elise's vocabulary. pull this together as an investigator might who wants to understand what if any crimes could have been committed in the conduct of presidential campaign. >> well, first we've got to understand that -- we keep using the phrase collusion, not on the show, bug we could also be looking at a violation of the

emoluments clause to the constitution if mueller can show that foreign government monies in the form of whatever manafort was doing behind the scenes to assist, even if it's funded through cambridge analytica or other methods, to assist the campaign, we could have a violation there. with regard to cyber law, we could have hacking violations, hacking being done at the behest or knowledge of the campaign officials, by a foreign government. we've got violations there. and, by the way, i think hacking charges are probably coming soon to a theater near you. russians being charged for hacking, not just for the social media propaganda, by mueller. the other thing that we've been -- >> you've been right before. so i want to stop you and ask you to tell us a little more. you said on this program either 24 -- i think it was 24 hours before bob mueller's 13 indictments of russian nationals for crimes committed in this space. talk about what you think might be on his radar.

>> yeah, i think he knows by name the russian hackers that were involved in hacking dnc, in giving e-mails to wikileaks. and i think that they're going to get indicted. i don't see how a prosecutor knows that and doesn't acts on it. if they're government hackers, it's going to require approval from the state department and department of justice. but i think that's going to happen. and this all segues into the point i keep trying to make, which is mueller knows classified top secret sensitive information and he probably has intercepts available to him. but they are so sensitive that he needs to do what's called parallel construction. he needs to develop human sources, cooperateers who fill in those blanks for him so he doesn't have to expose sensitive signals intelligence in open court. and i think that's what we're seeing in the latest developments with regard to these connections. >> jeremy, let me give you the last word on any and all of what

we've been talking about. i called you crazy for saying manafort could be a russian plant. i give you the last word. >> this is the first day that we have seen bob mueller draw a direct line between the senior levels of the trump campaign and the russian intelligence agency that hacked the 2016 election. i think that in itself is mind-blowing. it shows the extent to which bob mueller is all over these connections and i think there is a lot more to come. >> all right. we've been talking about stunning developments in both known tracks of the mueller probe, the obstruction of justice inquiry and the investigation into possible collusion. seems like a good time to make sure bob mueller can complete his work. we'll talk about the resistance to those efforts and some concerns and new enthusiasm in others. stay with us. let's begin. yes or no? do you want the same tools and seamless experience across web and tablet? do you want $4.95 commissions for stocks, $0.50 options contracts? $1.50 futures contracts? what about a dedicated service team of trading specialists?

did you say yes? good, then it's time for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. looks like we have a couple seconds left. let's do some card twirling twirling cards e*trade. the original place to invest online. with a $500,000 life insurance policy. how much do you think it cost him? $100 a month? $75? $50? actually,duncan got his $500,000 for under $28 a month. less than a dollar a day. his secret? selectquote. in just minutes, a selectquote agent will comparison shop nearly a dozen highly-rated life insurance companies, and give you a choice of your five best rates.

duncans wife cassie got a $750,000 policy for under $22 a month. give your family the security it needs at a price you can afford. where we're changing withs? contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com.

so, today seems like as good a time as ever to ask the question, what happens if donald trump finds a way to fire robert

mueller? former assistant attorney general under george w. bush jack goldsmith laid out the worst case scenario in the atlantic back in october. today his prediction doesn't seem so farfetched. he wrote, quote, what if mueller finds evidence that trump colluded with the russians and trump fires not just mueller, but pardons himself and everyone involved? the constitution as held thus far might continue to do so under more extreme circumstances. but it also might not. joining us at the table elise jimenez, journalist and contributing editor for bustle and jason johnson, politics editor for the root. let me start with you. so, republicans were -- republican senator tillis was for protecting bob mueller before he was against protecting bob mueller, now all of a sudden he's for it again. yesterday writing, putting a statement with his democratic colleague senator coombs saying,

quote, we urge president trump to allow the special counsel to complete his work without impediment, which is in the best interest of the american people. the president and our nation. i guess better late than never. >> people are going to eventually say this, but the practical issue is this. it's an election issue. above and beyond the constitutional things, if you just look at the house and senate, they recognize that if you fire bob mueller, they can kiss their jobs good-bye. people are angry enough, they are frustrated enough. this administration's communication skills aren't good enough to justify firing bob mueller. they couldn't come up with a good number reason and republicans would lose the house, they would lose the senate, they would lose state legislatures. they would lose everything close to dog catcher if they were to fire mueller at this point. that is one of the main reasons you have people coming out saying you have to keep this guy safe. >> you're asking a bigger question what this means for the american presidency. i think there is a question what this means for the republican party. i was in parkland on saturday at the march for our lives there. i was talking to all these young teen girls. they are registered, preregistered, as democrats. when you talk about why they are

registering as dems, they don't talk about trump. they talk about the republican party and the failures they see there. there is a long-term legacy issue for the party that's bigger than just this midterm. >> do you think, though -- tillis was one of the original sponsors of legislation to protect mueller. and then that fell very much out of fashion. when it it was out of fashion, it was at the same time that fbi director chris wray was begging the speaker to shutdown devin nunes' reckless -- he said there were grave concerns about the memo he released. it was at the time that donald trump was against andrew mccabe. do you think that something happened to revive this effort to protect mueller? because they sure let the president get a lot of slugz in. >> we saw a few weekends ago there was this test, this kind of test round fired where the white house is making noise again, the investigation has to end -- >> donald trump tweeted about mueller by name twice. >> exactly.

and i think that was a test to see how would they react. what you got, i think unfortunately in a lot of corners was, i'm very troubled by that. it would be a bad thing. and the mueller investigation should keep on going. i think there are some republicans are only comfortable saying he should stay and investigate as long as they think it won't amount to something terrible. but i watch this whole thing happen for a year now and is there anything that's happened in washington since the president was inaugurated that makes you think there will be a change of heart, that if something terrible is there, they will all say wait a second, we have to stop this from happening. that's not how it works now. >> it's dark nipping. >> -- darkening. >> i get asked all the time, elise, where are the republicans who are going to stand up to trump. i say nobody. if somebody was going to stand up to them, you would think they would do it after the access hollywood tape. if they weren't disgusted by that, after charlottesville.

if they weren't disgusted by that, a person in free trade -- there isn't anybody. >> there is no electoral incentive right now for these republicans to take a strong stance against trump. he's still very popular with that 35% that isn't going to budge no matter what. and then enough republicans to actually get over the finish line in november, you need to be pro-trump. and you look at how people who have been anti-trump or they've been kind of wishy-washi and unconvincing like ed gillespie in virginia where he tried to be more pro trump. it is inauthentic and voters aren't buying it. republicans are in a bind this election season. >> let me put up some poll numbers. i don't disagree with any of that political analysis, but bob mueller, his work -- we don't have the poll, but i believe upwards of 70% of americans want him to be able to finish his job. the numbers are very lopsided. i think it's something like 86% of democrats are for him completing his work and the number of republicans is in the

high 40s. but bob mueller is still a popular and respected figure. >> no matter what trump has tried to do, he can't destroy the fbi. the average person still -- if my kid gets kidnapped, if i get defrauded, heck, look at any nbc, cbs, nightly shows. we believe in the fbi. his attacks on the institution, his attacks on mueller, he's quiet, he doesn't have a lot of leaks, he's not on develop vision embarrassing himself and attacking president in a partisan way, the investigation looks clean to most american people. trump doesn't have any victory in getting rid of him other than trying to stop the russia investigation. he must be doing something legitimate. >> frank figliuzzi? go ahead. >> the country is not going to go to war voting on bob mueller.

they will tell a polster he should finish his work. is that going to be pivotal in the election s? i'm skeptical. >> i just came back from a round of focus groups for the ash croft in america project in mississippi and tennessee and hardly place that's do not support donald trump. on this issue it's such a divide in terms of the news consumption and the news silo and what sources people are getting their news from. and it was the week of the attack in london that gas, the chemical gas that is only manufactured in russia, and you could -- some of the strong trump supporters, we heard from multiple people who believe it couldn't have been russia because they manufactured it and were the only people and so it would be too obvious. >> right. >> this is coming from the news outlet and this has been successfully painted by far-right media as a witch hunt. >> let me bring frank figliuzzi in. i want to ask a serious question, i asked you this before. it seems while this is all about

donald trump's potential legal liability, he and his family members potential criminal liable, it's all fun and games to disparage -- worse than disparage, destroy the reputation of the fbi. i worked for the president in 2011. you need them if something bad goes down. >> nicolle, we like to say america is at peace because the fbi is at war. it's really true. every day there are agents and analysts who get out of bed and come to work with a mission of simply making america safe today, and it's a daily, daily thing. we also say they only have -- if terrorists only have to get it right once, the fbi has to get it right every single day. i think the public understands that, by and large, and i think the erosion of the president's kind of credibility with everything from stormy daniels to everything else helps to keep it arms length his efforts to attack the bureau. but i also think as a student of human behavior, we are just one

bad day away at the white house from him not being able to be restrained and from him possibly replacing rosenstein and inserting somebody who will constrain and limit mueller. or even replace the attorney general who then would not be recused and then could take over and, again, limit mueller. so, i'm fearful about that happening. i think mueller needs protections in place. >> two things that i don't hear come out of your mouth very often, i'm fearful. frank figliuzzi, thank you very much. when we come back the efrfot to get trump under oath on stormy daniels.

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®.

not in this house. 'cause that's no average family. that's your family. which is why you didn't grab just any cheese. you picked up kraft mozzarella with a touch of philadelphia for lasanyeah! kraft. family greatly. 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.

to clean up our r-rated conversation from the break, give me a second. all right. as the case involving mueller intensifies, so do donald trump's problems surrounding stormy daniels. daniels' attorney michael avenatti filed a motion asking for permission to depose the president and his lawyer michael cohen.

meaning trump would have to address daniels' allegations under oath. of the motion shows avenatti's intent the hush agreement did not have a logical purpose. it was for the purpose of influence s influencing the 2016 presidential election. avenatti discussed this morning wanting to depose the president wanting to depose the president. >> what exactly are you looking for here? >> the motion is not crazy. we're relying on u.s. supreme court precedent and a whole long line of cases in the ninth circuit court afte-- of appeal s well thought out and documents. >> what do you want -- >> we want the truth about what the president knew and when he knew it and what he did about it. >> the white house referring all questions about a potential deposition to michael cohen. who said the motion is a, quote, reckless use of the legal system. jeremy and the panel are still here. i'm going to start with you. because you are the one that took us down the r-rated path. your thoughts. >> the key thing is that he wants to establish that the

purpose of the hush agreement was to influence the 2016 election. if he can get that admitted under oath, this becomes a campaign finance case. this becomes a legal matter of excess contributions and that is against the law. >> let's watch trevor potter on 60 minutes -- i thought this was the best development in terms of what avenatti described as a legal chess match that he -- at least he believes he's playing with the president and michael cohen. this is trevor potter on 60 minutes. >> i think the edwards case is not as strong as the facts we have so far in the trump case. >> why do you think the potential case against cohen or trump is a stronger case than the edwards case? >> the timing of it. it wasn't the year before the election. it was right in the middle of the run-up to election day. when trump's conduct with women was a prime campaign issue. in fact it was what everybody

was faek focused on. >> it is right around the time that "access hollywood" came out and i've recorded -- i didn't say that but it was was i married to melania. so there was a political concern and a campaign objective was to keep these sort of things from getting out. >> and i also think it is perfectly possible with the n-- nondisclosure agreement and that may not be video of the interaction, that may be something that speaks to this. that may be an e-mail that said keep your mouth shut or do this and we never have to hear from you again. there is a lot of things they may have on the table. and it is really obvious. this is a ten-year-old affair. for the money to show up in campaign season, there is no other reason to pop up unless she was making a parity video. >> and we were talking in the break -- cleaning it up, talking about michael avenatti tactics and he is very public and there

is an elite analysis that he is over exposed but all of my normal friends want to know about is whether the president's affairs are true and whether he said to women that he was about to sleep with, you are so great you remind me of my daughter. >> and that just creeps everyone out. you can't help but just to be -- like, no, i don't want to remember that you said that. >> and to miss mcdougal. >> and he talks about his daughters -- >> yes. the creep factor out the wazu. but this is the federal election commission that will be delivering any jeust is if ther was a campaign finance violation. it will take years and stretch out so the stormy daniels' saga is probably go to go on for a very long time and we should all brace for that. >> and that is why i think -- >> it is important. the justice department also has

jurisdiction over the violations if they are willful. so if it is a very serious case in essence, the justice department could step in and they are not messing around. >> and jeff sessions -- on twitter all of the time. >> and that is the play going on 60 minutes and cbs this morning and really underlining what they believe the issue is. so that even if legally there is no recourse, if we in the media come for at fair, you stay for the media questions about what happened vis-a-vis campaign finance. >> jeremy bash, 67% approval rating and one said i did not have sexual regularatiolations woman, monica lewinsky and perjured himself and impeachment and no gru but just to lie about sex. how vulnerable is donald trump. >> if he is deposed he has to tell the truth and under oath

and violating that so-- oath is federal offense and could be subject to prosecution or doesn't tell the truth. that is why this civil litigation skirmish between avenatti and the president's lawyer is so significant. so perilous for the president. >> you are such a serious guy. former chief of staff at cia and pentagon, i won't let you get off with just a legal analysis. jump into the conversation about this as a political issue, about that we spent hours around this table talking about the russia investigation. it is two tracts, obstruction of justice probe and -- we don't call it collusion, the conspiracy to conspire with the foreign adversary. talk about the possibility that it could be a civil litigation about a botched nda with a porn star that represents more political peril and perhaps legal peril for this president. >> look, i think it shows the president's m.o. and the way he conducts himself over many

years. and he's bragged about that and also the way he used the trump organization and michael cohen and i think investigators looking the broader issues will analysis that. but a political point, back to frank's point earlier about the work of law enforcement. and the respect for the rule of law because ultimately if the president is paying hush money or he's trying to get out of his legal responsibilities, it goes to his fundamental respect for the rule of law. and look, trump is not on the ballot in november but trumpism is and what about trumpism is that you undermine the rule of law, and you undermine the federal bureau of investigation and undermine those who seek the truth and i think republicans will have to decide in november whether they are republicans or whether they are trump-licans. >> and i'm so glad i pressed you on that. that was good. we'll sneak in the last break. we'll be right back. your sorry not sorry thing. your out with the old in with the new, onto bigger and better thing.

get the live tv you love. no bulky hardware. no satellite. no annual contract. try directv now for $10/mo for 3 months. more for your thing. that's our thing. visit directvnow dot com but zzzquil is different have pain medicine because why would you take a pain medicine when all you want is good sleep? zzzquil: a non-habit forming sleep-aid that's not for pain, just for sleep.

we talk about all sorts of things if the break. our official question to you mr. avenatti is what was stormy doing in the bathroom for all of that time, from the 60 minutes interview. if you follow up, we'll send you a fruit basket. and thank you to the panel. that does it for the hour. i'm nicolle wallace, "mtp daily" starts right now with the fabulous katy tur in for chuck. >> have a lot of ideas. >> i went to pretty woman and flossing. what was she doing. that was the most riveting part of the 60 minutes interview. >> the things going through my mind that are appropriate for discussion. >> we need to do this together. >> nicolle wallace,ly leave it there for both of our sakes. see you later. and if it is wednesday, pardon the interruption. >> did the president