nicolle wallace starts right now. >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. a block buster report in the washington post confirms for the very first time that president donald trump has been informed by his lawyers that he is a subject of the mueller investigation into obstruction of justice and collusion with russia. reaction to news that a sitting president is the subject of a criminal probe span the idea logical spectrum with the white house clinging to the silver lining that the president is not at this time a target in the investigation. that would have been very bad news. and typically means that an indictment is imminent. but being a subject doesn't mean you can't later become a target. other legal experts say that today's report helps explain why attorneys representing witnesses have been conflicted out from representing the president as it's clear that their clients may be witnesses against the president. but according to former prosecutors and senior justice

department veterans, the most significant revelation in the post report is this. the special counsel told trump's lawyers that he is preparing a report about the president's actions while in office and potential obstruction of justice. according to two people with knowledge of the conversations. a former federal prosecutor told me mueller's report doesn't preclude mueller from indicting literally everybody else, but trump will be dealt with just like ken starr dealt with president clinton. the report puts the impeachment process in motion. joining us to discuss his remarkable reporting, one of the reporters with a by line in that report, robert costa, msnbc contributor joyce vance, a former u.s. attorney, frank figliuzzi, former fbi director for counter intelligence now an msnbc national analyst, and mimi, assistant u.s. attorney. first congrats on the megascoop. take us through what you and

your colleague carol are reporting achlt alwa reporting. >> always good to be with you, nicolle. we reported the president's legal team have been informed by special counsel robert mueller that he is a subject of the ongoing federal probe, not a witness in terms of his classification, neither is he at this moment a target, but the investigation continues. talking to our sources familiar with these discussions, they say that as you reported, that there is a report that's in the works, a document of sorts that could come out by this summer that would detail possible obstruction of justice or at least look at the conduct of the president. >> so, your colleague phil rucker tweeted this. he wrote, some trump advisors are concerned that mueller is saying trump isn't currently a target to bait him into an interview where he would be in greater legal peril. that doesn't sound like a tactic that mueller would need to resort to. how widespread is the concern that there is some sort of charade being played here? mueller is known to be a

straight shooter and a very clean prosecutor. >> it's hard to give this white house and the president's inner circle a broad brush in terms of their conclusions about what this all means. it's a divided camp at this moment. there are some people close to the president who say he should sit down with the mueller team and share his part of the story. others believe that mueller could really press the president in a serious way on certain issues, certain issues they don't feel pressure for the president to have to have some answers to at this point. and so you have the president agitated about the ongoing probe at the same time wanting to see it conclude, thinking that a sit down could conclude it quicker, but there is also a lot of debate whether that would be smart. >> robert costa, in reporting out this story, did you get the sense that delivering this news to the president that he is indeed a subject of the investigation and not a witness -- and i understand that many people who have retained lawyers to represent them in the mueller probe have been told to

their face and their lawyers have been told they are simply witnesses. did you get the sense that that strained things beyond repair with the president's former lawyer now, john dowd? >> based on our reporting it was certainly a factor in mr. dowd's departure from the legal team. his dagreement with the president about whether to pursue a sit-down with the mueller investigation. at the same time, we're told by white house officials and friends of the president that he at times seems to almost vent about the probe and growls about it to his allies. he also seems to relish the fact that he is a subject, but of course some of his lawyers say being a subject is not the perfect position to be in. and so he seems torn privately, we are told, about what his status is, about what it all means for him. >> joyce, let me bring you in on this line of questioning. this idea that there was relief expressed and shared with members of the media, this was what i heard from two or three outside allies of the president's today. at least he wasn't a target.

it seems like being a target is the very last thing that happens before one is indicted and once you are a target, you almost never agree to be interviewed by special counsel. so, it seems like there was at least some concern that things had moved further in that direction than at least i was aware of before the news came out that the president was a subject and people publicly expressed relief by that news. >> being a subject, not a target, is pretty cold comfort, nicolle. i've never looked a defense lawyer in the eye and delivered the news that his or her client is now a subject of an investigation and been met with a warm smile. you know, it's just not good news. the interesting, perhaps the more subtle question here is why isn't the president a target. is it because there is not evidence that establishes that he's guilty? we know that in department of justice talking a subject means that your conduct falls within the scope of the investigation. so, is the president not a

target simply because the quantum of evidence isn't sufficient, perhaps yet sufficient? or is he not a target because mueller has made the decision that he will stay within the safe cabin of existing body of law and policy in the justice department that says a sitting president can't be indicted? if that's the reason that trump is still labelled a subject, then that really bodes poorly for the president when and if mueller's report reaches congress. it could be something of a smack down at that point. >> do you accept this assessment from a former federal prosecutor who happens to be a republican who said that this report, that the real revelation -- all of it is revelatory, of course. mueller is intending to deliver a report on the president's conduct while in office to congress, and that that, like the ken starr report, puts in motion an impeachment process?

>> is that for me, nicolle? >> let me start with joyce and i wantoome bk to youn that, robert. >> amazingly, federal prosecutors, whether democrat or republican, it is not a political process and i think it is important for us to take advantage of opportunities to remind people that prosecutors view their jobs as being a political. that said, i think that that is one of the revelations of this report. the first one is that the president is now a subject of the investigation. we can't overstate how significant that is, that a sitting president is under investigation for serious criminal conduct. and then this idea that mueller, assuming that this reporting -- and i don't mean to denigrate the reporting, but we assume it comes from people on the president's team because we know mueller isn't talking. if it is true mueller intends to produce a report for congress, that would take on some form of being a prosecutive report laying out, for instance, the

charges that he would bring against the president if he were to indict him. and that report will be very telling when it comes outs. >> robert costa, my sense from reading your account is that your sources reacted to the news that the president was a subject as though it was something that they may be expecting the press to find out about at some point. they didn't seem to react inasmuch as a foal some manner to all of the things that happen once bob mueller does what you detail he will do, which is to produce a report, ostensibly for deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, and you detail in your account where it might go next. perhaps to the chairman and ranking members of the judiciary commites in the house and the sena. can yotalk about the reaction from your sources to that specific part of the reporting about the president's conduct in office around the question of obstruction of justice which i

assume would be around the comey firing? one witness told me today he was asked extensively about that statement crafted aboard air force one that turned out to be a lie. one member of the president's legal team quitting over that because hope hicks reportedly -- and she's denied this, but said those e-mails will never get out. that the firing of jim comey, the crafting of the statement over don junior's meeting with russians were two areas that witnesses were probed very intensively about. >> that's right, nicolle. people who are very familiar with this investigation and the discussions between the trump legal team and the mueller lawyers, they say that they have known for quite sometime that the probe is taking different tracks and that the track that's looking at russia interference in the 2016 election is taking its time. there's a lot more work to be done. paul manafort's trials will start later this year. there are more interviews to be done. but there is another track that

possible obstruction of justice, the president's conduct, the work of white house officials, and the mueller lawyers we're told are trying to wrap up that portion of the investigation, that track, as soon as possible. perhaps as soon as they can before the midterm elections so it doesn't come just days before the midterms. perhaps this summer. and that's the track they're trying to finish, and that's why you have bob mueller calling in early march based on our reporting to have a conversation to try to push forward the interview so he can finish up that report gettut to rod rosenein. >> and, frank figliui, the question of the interview is one of the central questions causing a rupture among the president's legal team. let's watch the president in his own words about how he feels about an interview with bob mueller. >> would you be willing to speak under oath to give your version -- >> 100%. >> are you going to talk to mueller? >> i'm looking forward to it actually. >> mr. president, would you still like to testify to special counsel robert mueller, sir?

>> thank you. i would like to. >> frank figliuzzi, would you want to interview donald trump if you were investigating, if you were an investigator on the mueller probe? >> i'd raise my hand for that in a second. >> what would you ask him and why? >> yeah, i think, look, the first thing we have to go toward is intent, right? and i'd spend some time developing a bit of a dialogue with him because you want to get him feeling comfortable. it's all about intent to obstruct. and then if the time remains, because if he hasn't stormed out of the room yet, you want so start inserting questions about russian collusion, russian meddling. you want to start pointing out discrepancies in his public statements like i don't really know russians, i don't do business with russians and you start presenting documented evidence in front of him he does indeed have business in russia, he does indeed know russians and you just have this box of evidence that you keep pulling papers out of and you slightly start eroding his confidence in his own statements. but i've got to tell you, the larger question here is i don't

think it's in the interest's interest to agree to sit down with robert mueller. i simply don't see this as a win for him. his base is with him. he can continue to present himself as a beleaguered president who is under attack by partisan special counsel and he can say no, no, no, no, no. yes, he could end up with a grand jury subpoena, but, you know what? his base will go, they're forcing his hand. they're making him do it. it might not even go that far. so, if i'm his attorney, i'm saying, as perhaps dowd has done, you need to reconsider this. >> and, mimi, at least one trump ally named chris christie, agrees with frank figliuzzi who went so far on sunday to warn the president of jail time if he goes into an interview with bob mueller and speak in hyperbole as he's done in his career as a salesman, and now as a politician which i guess you can

categorize as a salesman. where do you put the odds donald trump sitting down for an interview and what could the consequence be if that interview were to make up a report to congress about obstruction of justice? >> i think the president wants to sit down with him very badly. so, this is definitely, you know, going to continue to be a sort of war of wills between the president and his lawyers, although it sounds like he's sort of gotten rid of the one who is mainly objecting to it. i think the president thinks that if he can just tell his story to the prosecutors, they will be convinced that he had no ill intent when he did the things that they're obviously looking at. drafting the letter with respect to the trump tower meeting, the story with respect to it, firing comey. you know, but the problem is the president, he doesn't seem to know when he's telling the truth and when he's not. he really seems to have this detached view or, you know, relationship to the truth. there's just no way to say that

nicely. and so someone like that -- >> that's pretty nice. >> right, i didn't use the liar word so i guesst was ce. so, someone like that, i really do think he's going to have a hard time in an interview were prosecutors and investigators whose attention to detail and level of knowledge about everything that the president has said along the way. and it's hard to keep your story straight when it keeps changing. and that's a prosecutor's mantra almost and dream come true. when someone keeps changing their story, it's usually a sign that they're not telling the truth. and remember, the story here from the president and his team started with, no one had contact with the russians. we know that's not true. >> right. >> so, why start with that lie? and you know, how are you going to explain away that? >> so, let me ask you, frank figliuzzi, if the president is now a subject, he agrees to an interview with bob mueller. and the picture that was painted for me by someone, a former a

very senior former justice department official very familiar with special counsel investigations and their processes as well as investigator and someone who has represented witnesses and subjects described the scene where bob mueller would be in with seven or eight of his deputies, binders full of transcripts of testimony from countless other witnesses. we don't know what we don't know about who's been inside bob mueller's investigation room, who has testified before him, that there would be a court reporter there and should he lie in that setting, that even if he doesn't become a target for the purposes of being someone about to be indicted, that, too, could become part of a report on obstruction of justice that as this other federal prosecutor said, could put impeachment motiin motion.

>> i can't see this as being in his best interest. public statements, starts nuancing things, it could potentially be characterized as an intent to obstruct right there in that interview. i don't see how that works. the setting for this would be very interesting. i can see teams of, say, two prosecutors or a prosecutor and an agent presenting one fax of the questions, one component saying i've got the obstruction piece and they talk a couple hours. then there's a break. then here comes the russian meddling team and there's a break. there's experts constantly staying on target with him. it's going to be a withering day or two if he agrees to do it and he could be captured in a lie easily adding to evidence of intent to obstruct. it's not in his best interest to do it. >> so, joyce, i mean, i think frank's assessment that the president could easily be caught in a lie is just the objective analysis of any white house reporter who thinks or any white

house staffer who thinks they're not on the record in any presidential ally speaking freely about the man they know. what are the odds that the president doesn't agree to an interview and bob mueller is able to proceed undeterred? >> you know, mueller could theoretically subpoena the president. that could be a little bit messy and end up in court and might at the end of the day result in the president repeatedly taking the 5th endment so that any grand ry testimony would be terminated. the really remarkable component of this whole little unfolding drama is how numb we've become. the fact that whether you are one of the president's lawyers or part of his staff or maybe an objective observer, everyone believes that this president will lie when he's questioned by special counsel. that there is something, whether it's collusion with russia or some sort of financial misdealing or obstruction that will cause the president of the united states to lie about his

conduct and expose himself to criminal prosecution. so, whether mueller gets at that through a grand jury subpoena, through an informal interview, or simply by the president refusing to make himself available to mueller, this part of the story really is very telling about where this investigation is moving and how high up in the white house culpability lies. >> robert costa, let me give you the last word on that note, sort of this known-known, donald trump lies freely about big things, small things, let me gi get your comment on that and leave you with one last question. was there any sense that anybody else had been notified that they were a subject and not a target, any other family member like don junior or jared kushner? >> at this point i don't have reporting about the family or different white house advisors or former advisors. what i do know is that throughout the course of my reporting, it's evident that the mueller investigation, because of its relationships with some

of the president's lawyers want to have a positive relationship in the sense they want to have the president eventually sit down. so, when the lawyers ask for an update about the status and robert mueller has actually testified about this in the past, the d.o.j. has a responsibility, in hew to inform people like the president or others about their status if they're in these kind of negotiations about a discussion or an interview. so this is what would happen in early march, and ever since there's been fallout in terms of the internal debate. but the fallout beyond the president remains a reporting target. >> all right, robert costa, congratulations to you and your colleague carol lennock, for a great scoop. joyce, thanks for joining us. frank, thank you. when we come back, anatomy of a melt down. we wind the clock back to when trump thought he was the subject of a mueller investigation and reexamine his moat heated rhetoric about his own justice department, the mueller probe and the parent company of the newspaper that broke the news. also ahead, making russia

great again. donald trump's national security advisor, the latest official drinking the truth serum that is a departure date from the trump west wing with a warning that russia is getting off easy. david. what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. ♪ everybody two seconds! ♪ "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. ♪

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 you know wh's not awesome? gig-speed intern. 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've learned that john dowd, the president's former lawyer in the russia investigation, had informed the president prior to his departure on thursday, march 22nd, that he was a subject of the mueller investigation. let's go back in time now and reexamine the president's most unhinged statements and actions from that week with the benefit of that hindsight.

it's abundantly clear that the news didn't sit well with the president. first thing monday morning just days before dowd resigned, this tweet. quote, a total witch hunt with massive conflicts of interest. that same day we also learned that trump tried to hire a conspiracy theorist, fox news contributor to join his legal team. he was ultimately conflicted out. tuesday we learned that the president had offered star attorney ted olson, a role feing him as part of his legal team. ted olson declined. wednesday morning another early morning attack on bob mueller fox news contributor alan dershowitz said, quote, i was opposed to the special counsel robert mueller being appointed. a friend and colleague describing him as, quote, fed up with trump's bleep luna si and he'd like to meet with mueller for an interview. this is' not all. he also fired his national security advisor, challenged joe biden to a fist fight, slapped

tariffs on china and sent markets plummeting. joining me at the table, elise stokols, now an msnbc analyst, and philip bump, reporter for the washington post. since your paper had the scoop, let's start with you. i always find it -- and you coined this term, presidential tells. there is always an explanation after the fact for the biggest presidential tantrums and this seems to be that explanation for, by all accounts, a more unhinged than average week for the president, this week that he apparently learned he was the subject of the mueller probe. >> i think it's probably true. it's obviously drawing a direct line is only easy to do when you know that he's been watching fox news in the morning, right? and i think it is important to reiterate that because that often is the impetus for him sort of flying off the handle and tweeting out random things as he watches fox and friends, he gets riled up and tweets with

it. it's hard to say sitting here what it wa whathe partular things were to which he was reacting. i think it is also very safe to say when he gets an impulse in his head he wants to react to something, he goes ahead and reacts to something. it makes it harder for us to say this was this thing that happened that driefove him overe line. things drive him over the line all the time. >> his only didn't tell him so he wouldn't tweet them. he doesn't play any cards close to the vest. everything he knows is expressed in rage and anger and tweets and attacks. this was certainly, i believe after the firing of andy mccabe, he first started tweeting about bob mueller by name. so, i believe being informed that he was a subject also correlates to when he first started attacking bob mueller on twitter. >> well, and i would also point to the washington post story on saturday about his business interests. the pressure and the scrutiny on trump organization really seems

to hit a nerve in a way that other topics he won't get that upset with critique of his presidential performance, but he doesn't like for trump org to have skrucrutiny and he doesn't like spotlight on stormy daniels. it's cause and effect. >> we should point out there was a story, "the new york times" reported trump businesses had been subpoenaed just before this news landed. you're right, there was probably a buildup, a feeling -- pressure as you accurately describe it. eli, you coined my favorite term, presidential tells. one of the other developments, i imagine that print journalists who has this skup, a caroline and robert costa did, had to call the white house for comment on it. do you think there is any correlation when they called for comment when the president tried to destroy jeff bezos and amazon? >> i think it started from

stories that built up and angered him over time. they covered him with scrutiny and rigger. it bothers him. he is a creature of the media. now that he is president who does he like? fox news and sinclair broadcasting going to bat for these people that want to carry his water and will willing to do so and attacking every other network and newspaper. and obviously, you know, we talk about how much of this comes from a fragile ego. my mom is the trained psychologist, not me. but any time you are close to donald trump and i spend time around him and you watch his behavior and you look at his tweets, you just see that this is a person who is incredibly thin skinned. and the fact that jeff bezos happens to be younger and richer than him probably doesn't help in terms of trump deciding he really wants to do something to mess with him. >> and does this have any bearing -- does an investigator or prosecutor go to the president's state of mind? does all of this expressed rage and resentment and desire to

punish, does that speak to any sort of criminal intent? is it a line of investigation for a prosecutor? >> well, i think some of his specific tweets in the past, you know, could be part of the investigation in the sense that they are his statements. but for the most part, you know, i think mueller is going to separate that out and understand that the tweets are the tweets and what he ss in a room in a formal interview under oath is different. but i do think it's interesting and the time line that you pointed out, you know, that's when they reached out to ted olson who is a fantastic lawyer. and, you know, so while apparently the president is taking heart that he's only a subject, well, privately, you know, he's looking -- >> he's trying to hire a really, really, really, really, really good lawyer at the same time he learns he's a subject. >> yeah. >> and is calling it a witch hunt. let me -- we didn't get to talk to any of you in the a blog.

let me ask you on the bigger news of the day that we are now led by a president who is a subject of a criminal investigation. >> i mean, i don't know that -- certainly not to undercut my colleague's scoop. i think people expected that was the case. there were lots of rumbling. >> how did the news mueller is now going to prepare a that a former fellow prosecutors tells me puts the impeachment process in motion? >> nor me who spends time looking at political campaigns is fascinating to think there may be a report from robert mummer in the summer, a few months before midterm election, hooes' what we covered about trump's actions. with he don't know what that report is going to say. there certainly could be some level of exoneration, but it will be an articulation of everything robert mueller knows donald trump may have tried to do in order to obstruct his investigation. it is an regardless of what's in that document, it is not going to be a positive development for president trump and therefore it is not going to be a positive development for republicans in november. >> i am old enough to remember the low-tech manner in which the ken starr report came out. i remember printing out copies.

i was a young press aide working in the california state legislature. and we poured over photocopied -- we al had photocopy ink on our hands reg through the salacious details. can you imagine the optics of paul ryan right upping to the computer? republicans don't have any idea what they're going to be dealing with, but none of it is good. >> i wonder if they have a little bit of an idea what they're dealing with just in terms of how it's been dealt with on the senate side. you look at the seriousness that senator richard burr has been operating in concert, you know, direct communication and as an ally of mark warner. it's so stark a contrast to what's going on on the house intelligence side, and it makes me think that, yes, some of the republican leadership does, indeed, have an indication of what is coming down the pipeline. >> eli, just this gaze into the crystal ball. you've now got news, you've got confirmation now mueller is

preparing a report on the president's conduct in office. we've got anyone that covers the mueller investigation that's heard from witnesses and/or lawyers that their witnesses have been asked, current and former white house officials, have been asked specifically about the president's conduct in office around these issues that we've talked about, the flash points, the firing of jim comey, the firing of sally yates who first informed the white house about mike flynn lying there in the west wing. around the crafting of this statement. do you think mueller's job is safe? >> who can predict? i mean, i've talked to people who have been in to talk to the special counsel's team and they have come out saying, i think that he has something on the president. and so the more that this gets closer to an end game with the report that could come out, the mo tuous mueller's position becomes. republicans have had opportunities to protect that investigation. they have chosen not to do it. and so donald trump may take some solace in that, but at the end of the day when he starts to feel threatened and penned in,

that tends to be when we see him lash out and do even more erratic things. is mueller safe? none of us can say with certainty that he is because donald trump oftentimes does things just to prove that he can. we will continue to see him try and trash the entire thing, smear mueller, smear the entire investigation as a witch hunt, to dollcolor the perceptions th whatever he comes back with is somehow biased, somehow -- >> frank figliuzzi made that point. >> he's going to continue to lean into that harder. but does he go beyond that if he gets more unnerved something worse could be coming? i think it's quite possible. >> it's quite possible he reads that post story again and rethinks all that relief he felt. mimi, thank you so much for spending some time with us. up next, a familiar pattern just hours after donald trump proclaimed, quote, no one's been tougher on russia than me. his own national security advisor appears to suggest the exact opposite. and guess what he has in common with the last guy on trump's team to blast russia?

he's on his way out.

nobody's been tougher on russia than i have. >> russia brazenly and i imausibly denies i actions. and we have failed to impose sufficient costs. >>robabl nobody's been tougher to russia than donald trump. >> the kremlin's confidence is growing as its agents conduct their sustained campaigns to undermine our confidence in ourselves and in one another. >> nobody has been tougher on russia, but getting along with russia would be a good thing, not a bad thing. and just about everybody agrees to that, except very stupid people. >> i believe that president putin has clearly come to the conclusion there is little price to pay here. >> clearly what we've done

hasn't been enough. >> we have been very tough on russia frankly. >> has the president directed you and your agency to take specific actions to confront and blunt russian influence activities that are ongoing? >> we're taking a lot of specific efforts to blunt russian -- >> directed by the president? >> not as specifically directed by the president. >> but no one's tougher on russia than donald trump. at least according to donald trump. those comments you just heard from outgoing national security advisor h.r. mcmaster that the u.s. has failed to impose sufficient cost backed up what we heard a few weeks back from admiral mike rogers and fbi director chris wray and they illustrate a bizarre, really a surreal tug of war between the president and the best american intelligence officials that anyone's assembled in a while. either no one's been tougher on russia if you believe the president or we aren't doing enough to punish them, if you believe everybody else.

both can't be true. joining us n peter baker chief correspondent for "the new york times." i've heard this analysis from former national security officials at liberty to speak a little more freely that u.s. foreign policy as it pertains to russia has been placed on two parallel tracks. when our assistance is needed, we will help an ally, but that the president is either kept in the dark or uninvolved in that kind of policy work. and i wonder, just first, your reaction s to h.r. mcmaster's comments. >> well, i think the comments are in direct contrast to what we heard from the president earlier. your set up makes that point quite sharply. both general mcmaster and others in his administration, former secretary of state rex tillerson, now fired, and others had come to the conclusion that a year's were the of trying to cooperate with russia wasn't working and in fact, russia had taken the signal from the west's actions and lack of actions to

embolden it to continue to do things like this poisoning that we've seen in britain. so, for the president to say no one's been tougher, what he's talking about, he uses his example of that the fact that he's got a larger military budget and that he promotes energy production. he doesn't mention, even when he talked yesterday, about the expulsion of diplomats which his administration did do, or sanctions which his administration did do a couple weeks earlier. you have these two parallel tracks is the right way to look at it. you have a president who wants to keep his liends nes of communication open with president putin, congratulates him on the sham election, and a less partisan consensus, sanctions, expulsions, and being look for ways to be tougher. >> let me press you on the expulsion. it is our understanding we didn't reduce the head count. we didn't reduce the number of diplomats here at all.

we required them to send them back and they can come back. it sounds like the immigration policies the president rails on. we can have just as many diplomats here at the end of said expulsion. >> that's true. that's the tradition honestly. that was true with president obama's expulsions in 2016. that was true of president bush's expulsions in 2001. that is the traditional way that diplat expulsions work when one country signals displeasure with the other. they can be replaced one at a time with visa applications. so, whoever comes here will still have to be approved by the state department. you're right, those slots don't go away. 9 exception to that was last year when president putin reduced the embassy staff in moscow down to 450, something like that. that was an actual reduction in staff and slots. but their retaliation this last week was like our action in the days prior to that, our embassy can also refill those 60 slots that were expelled last week.

>> so, elise, making russia great again, they took tougher action against us than we took against them. can you weigh in on the truth serum that we see from trump administration officials who are on the way out, trying to salvage their credibility and their reputations as they try to extricate themselves from trump and trumpism? >> well, mcmaster's commentary today makes me wonder how free wheeling he's going to be once he's really out of office and how open hs goi to be i his critique of hisime in the trump administration. you talk to national security council staffers and they are frustrated with how they saw mcmaster be treated. they love mcmaster. he was very thorough, methodical. he was instituting planning within the national security council, and then with donald trump's announcement last week he was ready to get out of syria, they might hear these ideas from donald trump, but he's been talked down and explained the process. this is the strategy, we have to follow through.

then he'll make a sudden announcement and just everything goes up in the air. and mcmaster is someone who has commanded troops on the battle field. he knows what it's like to be responsible for the troops you command, the mission that they have been sent out to do. and it's frustration with all 2000 troops in syria who, what is their mission? what is the strategy? no one is asking and it's a war that hasn't been congressionally authorized and it has just been dragging completely on. so, while trump might be right in questioning what we're doing there, he's the one who decided to double down and keep our troops in syria. >> he also decided to invite, peter baker, vladimir putin to the white house for a meeting and you report that analysts said the discussions of a possible meeting between mr. trump and mr. putin may be more for domestic consumption and a russia that sees itself excoriated after the poisoning of mr. skripal and his daughter yulia. people realize what a major hit they took. it's a way to say see, it's not

so bad, putin is welcome in polite society. not just society, donald trump's white house. do you think the president undermined the allies trying to send a much tougher message to vladimir putin? >> this is clearly not the plan that his administration came up for, the idea they were going to impose sanctions and they were going to expel diplomats. at the same time congratulate president putin on his reelection victory in an election nobody outside of russia thinks was a genuine democracy in action. and that he would then invite him to the white house where he's not been invited since 2005 certainly does send conflicting signals. the signals make a difference. what president putin takes from the west is, you know, much more focus on what the leader says than what the people underneath him says. he can now writeoff what general mcmaster says on the way out, let's 235 let's face it, rex tillerson is out. we can be friends. you're right, in publicizing

this idea there had been an invitation to the white house what president putin is telling his people is we're not isolated, we're not alone. it's not that they have succeeded in making us a pariah state. we are still important. we're important enough that the president of our country, president of russia will be welcome to the white house even amid this rau of poisoning and russian milng. >> why do you think vladimir putin thinks donald trump will be so loyal? >> the experience the last 14 months if nothing else. president trump said nobody has been tougher on russia. even as he said that, he didn't criticize the r president putin, he didn't criticize russia. he didn't say what he's been tough about. he didn't condemn them in his own voice for the poisoning. he didn't condemn them in his own voice for the meddling. he didn't condemn them in his own voice for the intervention in ukraine, annexation of crimea. what is he being tough about with russia?

why is russia -- he won't say it. so, from president putin's point of view, he hears this and he doesn't hear any criticism. he hears a person who says wiles get along with president putin. i can be his friend. >> peter baker, thank you very much. up next, facebook ceo just acknowledged they made a huge mistake as the company reveals millions more americans than previously thought may have had their data passed along to cambridge analytica. 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. we know that when you're spending time with the grandkids every minute counts. and you don't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why we show you exactly when we'll be there. saving you time, so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care rvices. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service

that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores.

liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. and sometimes, i don't eat the way i should. so, i drink boost. boost high protein nutritional drink ha15 gms of protein to help maintain musclan26 esial vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d. look for savings on boost in your sunday paper. facebook just saying that the number of people affected by cambridge analytica's harvesting of personal information is more than they originally thought. before today, we thought that number was 50 million, but it turns out facebook saying today that private data on up to 87 million people, mostly in this country, may have been improperly shared with the data firm used by the trump campaign to target and turnout their

voters. for perspective that's a bit more than the population of germany. as we speak, mark zuckerberg is holding a conference call addressing what the company is doing to better protect personal information in the future. a few moments ago he reflected on his company's response to the scandal. it is clear now that w didn't do enough. we didn't focus enough on preventing abuse and thinking through how people would use these tools to do harm as well. and that goes for fake news, foreign interference and in election and hate speech and in addition to developers and data privacy. we didn't take a broad enough view of what our responsibility is and that was a huge mistake. it was my mistake. >> nbc's anna schector is monitoring the call and we pulled her off to join us and you're here now. and what shocks me about all of mark zuckerberg's statements and that one as well, is that they somehow still see themself as a

force for good but all we hear is how much harm the technology has caused to the technology and users and people who think their personal data is safe. is there any sort of mind shift or just in p.r., self salvation mode. >> he sounded proud of the company he built. when you build a company like facebook you're going to mess stuff up. that is the exact language that he used. so he knows -- >> is giving out personal information of 87 million people to a data targeting fm tha may have -- that is at the center of the mueller investigation to russia influence simply messing up. >> i think it is more than that. i think what comes out of the cambridge analytica story is they have no idea how millions -- tens of millions of users' data is being use and who it got back to and they are putting band aids on it and this is a long haul. we are just at beginning and i

don't think they can contain it fully. >> it seems to me -- they are late to apologize. reluctant to apologize and always behind the facts. the facts have moved beyond a -- this is the saks fifth avenue if you shopped here your information may have been compromised. cambridge analytica is at the center of the probe of the russia influence and no acknowledgment that their tools weren't just exploited, but used by an american adversary, it is true that there are reports that the mueller investigation is looking at cambridge analytica and potentially as that being the conduit of information between the campaign and the russ russians. but it is safe to say that the important story here as it regards to cambridge analytica use of facebook data is the facebook story. we don't know that the facebook data had any significant effect on the campaign. we don't know that the trump seem said they didn't use it and we know they used facebook a lot. it was central to the campaign but not the cambridge analytica side of it. so the important thing about cambridge analytica is that it exposes that -- especially several years ago facebook's

data management systems were nowhere near what they needed to be. at the same time it was growing ex uponen shally. and when this happened in 2014 when cambridge gathered the information, facebook is not what it is now. now one-third of the planet uses facebook. and it is like you build a house and put locks on the doors and windows and people starts giving you treasure and you never lock it down -- >> but if it dies in a fire, it is taken down and isn't it on fire, elise. >> i think this is horrible. looking at the breach of personal data and no one has any idea how far this is gone and the lingering question i have, so cambridge analytica, were they part of the trump campaign? did they have sharing voter file information with the rnc? so as the rnc voter data also been potentially compromised?

that is another humanitarian. there is so much sensitive information that come been compromised. >> well cambridge analytica employees were sitting next to brad pascal in sant and so were facebook employees. they were all working together. so this is a interesting story that exposes this vast world that many facebook users had nooid w nooid -- idea about. and this 87 million is the total number that could have been. >> and that is the answer until it changes and it is a bigger number. i wan -- i want to ask you, mark zuckerberg reminds me of republicans circa 1970, thinking that being transparent is an undervald rtue, has the huberous to think facebook is so good it could do anything. where do you think it is heading in terms of regulation on capitol hill. >> he is tone deaf and slow to respond and the company got warnings about the peep-- the people's information could be scraped by searching phone

numbers. that is something they were warned about years before this and decide not to respond and now presenting it as something they just discovered now. so this is not good for them. but the oversight comes down to republicans in congress and i think one important thing in terms of politics to watch on this, we talked earlier about trump and his sort of crusade against jeff bose os and amazon because he feels a grieved -- >> he loves -- >> but this is something tied to cambridge this is a data firm taking credit for trump's win. the guy who headed that up, brad pars cal is in charge of the trump re-election campaign. so i could see a situation with the president and -- and by extension of that republicans in congress are a little defensive about this situation. and they are less likely to go after them, i don't know that regulation toward amazon is coming because the president is angry but he does set a tone with his rhetoric and this is much more inconvenient for him especially than some of the

others -- >> because he doesn't want to lose a tool. >> it is tied to his campaign and could go back to mueller probe. >> and mark zuckerberg is heading to the hill next week. any sense of what to expect. >> he knows he has to sound contrite and take responsibility. he said repeatedly today this is my mess up. i built this place and i run this place and i think we'll hear that going forward. >> we'll see if it works. msnbc will have much more on mark zuckerberg and the conversation about digital privacy and what responsibilities these tech companies have. if any, onfriday, chris hayes and carawisher sit down with too many cook. don't miss "revolution" right here on friday night. we'll be right back.

thank you so much. thank you! so we're a go? yes! we got a yes! what does that mean for purchasing? purchase. let's do this. got it. book the flights! hai! si! si! ya! ya! ya! what does that mean for us? we can get stuff. what's it mean for shipping? ship the goods. you're a go! you got the green light. that means go! oh, yeah. start saying yes to your company's best ideas. we're gonna hit our launch date! (scream) thank you! goodbye! we help all types of businesses with money, tools and know-how to get business done. american express open. searching one topic. that will generate over 600 million results. and if you've been diagnosed with cancer, searching for answers like where to treat, can feel even more overwhelming. so start your search with a specialist at cancer treatment centers of america.

start with teams of cancer treatment experts under one roof. start where specialists use advanced genomic testing to guide precision cancer treatment... ...that may lead to targeted therapies and more treatment options. start where there's a commitment to analyzing the latest research and conducting clinical trials-to help each patient get the personalized cancer care they deserve. start at one of the cancer treatment centers of america hospitals near you. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com/experts

i'll put you on the spot for the last word on the big day of news. the president is the subject of the robert mueller investigation and facebook is still up to no good. >> completely unsurprising on both. >> no news here. >> no surprise. >> that does it for our hour. thanks to eli and anna, elise. i'm nicollewallace, "mtday" starts rightow. hi chuck. >> we've gone a long way from facebook saying there is no way any fake news happened here to 83 million -- >> they remind me of old-fashioned republicans. like, oh, we don't have to talk to the press. nothing to see her. hyper defensive until they want to show you something that is a mirage. i'm unimpressed. >> when you keep having to fill in the blanks it makes you wonder how much more blanks do we not know