>> same. right now, our dear friend andrea mitchell. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," the gambler. the president doubling down on tariffs against china upping the ante to another $100 billion on top of the $50 billion he had already threatened igniting a trade war but blaming his predecessors. >> we don't have a trade war. we've lost a trade war because for many years, whether it is clinton or the bushes or obama, all of our presidents before have for some reason it just got worse and worse. targeting russia. the trump administration punishes putin's son if law and the oligarchs with the strongest sanctions yet against russia. and pay for privacy? facebook admits its error in not sharing the full extent of the data breach. sa sheryl sandberg tells savannah guthrie on "today" --

>> do you have an opt-out data. >> we have different forms of opt out. we don't have opt out at the highest level. that would be a paid product. good day. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. president trump making waves on two big fronts. first, cracking down on russia with the strongest sanctions yet against vladimir putin's inner circle for election meddling and russia's other activities against the west. meantime, a major white house escalation and the brewing trade war with china. the president threatening another $100 billion in tariffs against chinese goods on top of the $50 billion he's already announced. the president said he was responding to china filing a complaint against the u.s. with the world trade organization which mr. trump is calling an unfair retaliation. on a new york radio show taped yesterday, the president admitting this will hurt consumers and businesses in the u.s. >> so i'm not saying there won't be a little pain.

but the market's gone up 40%, 42%. so we might lose a little bit of it. but we're going to have a much stronger country when we are finish and that's what i'm all about. we have to do things that other people wouldn't do. so we may take a hit and you know what? ultimately we're going to be much stronger for it. but it is something we had to do. >> nbc's peter alexander at the white house. peter, this -- these are very bold steps and a lot of people in the business world, a lot of farmers in red states, are really worried about the prospect of an all-out trade war with china. what's the thinking behind it? >> reporter: that's exactly right. not just members of the business community, but certainly many so republicans as well, republican senator ben sass of nebraska saying hopefully this is effectively a bluff by the president. he says if he's even half serious, he says this is nuts because, among other things, some of those agricultural states could be hard-hit by these counter measures by china. but to be clear, this really is a dramatic escalation in that

tariff tit for tat that now some fear could become a trade war. the president you remember last year was so focused on the stock market this year is saying, as you heard in that sound bite, we're willing to accept some short-term pain but we've got to correct this for the future. we've got to make this better so that trade is more fair and more reciprocal. within the white house the president has a series of competing mind sets. right? peter navarro, some of his aides, on this issue who want him to be more aide sdversarial towards china. and larry kudlow said it might never happen. the president has some history were what some view as bluffing. days ago he threatened to veto the omnibus days before he signed it. he announced fire and fury

before he announced he'd meet kim jong-un. >> peter, as you alluded to, larry kudlow for the third day in a row, this is first week on job, trying to assure people, because he is known as a free trader. this is what he said to our colleague, kristen welker, on the white house driveway. >> mr. kudlow, president trump said there may be a little pain. should americans prepare for some economic pain? >> i don't want to go there. because you know what? our economy's in fine shape. i don't want to talk pain. i want to talk progress on a very important issue. >> so progress is going to be very hard to define but the way the president's always defined it as markets. we know the markets are up and down and very volatile since this all started earlier this week. >> it is clear, there is sort of a good cop/bad cop strategy, whether on purpose but one

that's sort of taken shape right now by larry kudlow trying to soften blow for the markets, down approaching 400 points today, and donald trump out with his tough rhetoric repeatedly on this. the issue that exists here, to emphasize, for those red states, because they'd target agricultural products, small aircraft, among other things, but agricultural products being at the heart of this, soybeans among them, to hurt businesses, hurt jobs, and hurt the 2018 prospect for republicans. that's the real fear. republicans fear this could essentially erase the gains they hoped to ben if it efit by the s they've been celebrating the last couple of months. >> let me ask you about the russia sanctions. this is the first time we're seeing real sanctions against vladimir putin's inner circle, even the estranged husband of his daughter and a key figure

connected to manafort and gates so likely part of the mueller probe. lukoil. we'll talk about it all in the next block but they seem to be really toughening up against russia. this came from u.s. intelligence and was obviously spearheaded by h.r. mcmaster, a parting blow. >> that's exactly right. we haven't heard the president speak about this. treasury secretary mnuchin is the one who's been speaking publicly about it. but just a couple of days ago when i was in the cabinet room when the president was hosting the heads of government from the baltic states, he said no one has been tougher on russia than donald trump. the question at the time there were a lot of questions about how he could make that claim. but now there is a little more beef behind that claim for this administration, at least broadly. you heard h. r6r. mcmaster hour after the president made that claim said, no, we have not done

enough. also for the incursion in crimea and for vladimir putin's support of bashar al assad in sar yyria. >> peter alexander on two fronts, thank you so much. returning to the trade war with china, joining me, steve leisman, cnbc reporter. and carlos gutierrez, former president and ceo of kellogg. someone who knows about the wheat and soybeans and the midwest and the agricultural sector. first steve, talk about the markets and how they're adjusting to this whole new volley of trade tariffs and retaliation from china and the president last night acting again. >> andrea, if you don't mind i'll question the premise in your question that the market is adjusting. i don't think it is adjusting. if you look at the volatility that's been all around it, just the other day the chinese

retaliated, the market was down 500, finished up 300. they kind of thought they were out of the woods and they digested that particular trade war pill, if you will. then this comes out last night. we're down 350. it was a weak jobs report but really the sense is they're responding once again to the possibility, well, maybe it was a straight skirmish before but now it is starting to look, feel and smell a lot like a trade war. >> one thing to you first, steve, on this -- last night i was at my desk around 7:30 last night. i see this statement -- whoa -- from the white house -- $100 billion. they had done $50 billion. the chinese had responded minimally with tariffs, but then they did a protest with the world trade organization which is going through the process. the world structures. and then the president doubles down and says that the chinese had retaliated and he does $100 billion -- threatening, but could be enacted -- and that to me seemed as though the president is carrying the escalation, not the chinese

side. tell me if i'm wrong. >> i'll just answer real quickly before the secretary does. i'll point out i covered the secretary when he had his relationships with china. i also covered the obama administration, and before that the clinton administration. i have never seen international relations handled in this way. always, especially when dealing with the chinese, i traveled with secretary geithner to china for discussions then. i covered those summits. i covered g7. g20. always the relationships with china are handled very carefully, very delicately with a very simple idea -- that by publicly excoriating the chinese, it was the exact way to make them do the opposite of what you wanted them to do. so this does not have the appearance, andrea, and you've done this as well, much more than i have, which is have the appearance of a considered deliberate policy with a goal at the end that's very plain to see. >> again, secretary gutierrez,

to steve's point, in reading the statement that came out of the white house, i thought for a moment this must be from a tweet and they'll fix it in the morning. it wasn't a tweet. it was a printed statement. and larry kudlow, god bless him, was on the plane with the president all day going back from west virginia so he had people around him. we saw in one of the wide shots from that photo opportunity on the plane that they were watching the masters -- or at least the masters was watching the tv. they weren't watching cnbc. so i don't know if they were even discussing this. but to come out with a statement that was this explicit, to steve's point, this is hardly subtle. >> it is actually pretty odd and it looks like a poker game. it strikes me like i'll see your 50 and i'll raise you 100. i think steve is right on. you cannot negotiate with the chinese in public. and you can't humiliate them and you can't assume that you will win and they will lose. so it appears that what's happening is we have the 60-day common period, and that could be stretched out to perhaps six

months and the president would like a negotiation in those six months, and the $50 billion of tariffs are sort of the hammer to make people negotiate. six months is very little time to negotiate a deal, so someone is going to have to lower the expectations. i'm not sure the president will. there are people in the white house who are saying we have to do this, we can't just fake it. we have to do it. and if we're negotiating and you know that i'm using a tactic, that tactic won't be very effective. so essentially what we've told the chinese is we're just bluffing that we want to negotiate. >> and you know a lot from your experience as commerce secretary and your prior experience in the business sector with kellogg, what is the impact on our farmers? already we know that the chinese are talking about soybeans and other products. they're going after those states where mid-term elections and presidential elections are won or lost. >> that's huge.

33% of what we produce is exported. so our farmers need exports. they need foreign markets. of the $50 billion that china has threatened to retaliate with, 12.5 billion are soybeans. that will hit our markets, our farmers with be very hard and that business will go to argentina or brazil. it's not like we're the only ones who produce soybeans. >> i want to but the tread some tweeted out by ben sass, saying hopefully the president is just blowing off steam but even if he is half serious, this is nuts. china's guilty of many things but the president has no actual plan to win right now. he's looking to light american agriculture on fire. let's absolutely take on chinese bad behavior but with a plan that punishes them, not us. this is the dumbest possible way to do this. >> that's the thing. where do we end up. the president says we have a better country. what is the end game?

do we want klein to look li-- c look like the u.s.? seems like we're just thinking about the next step. >> carlos gutierrez, steve leisman, the dow is now down around 366. we'll keep an eye on all of this. thank you so much for getting us started today. coming up, the kremlin crackdown. how will russian president vladimir putin respond to the new u.s. sanctions against some of his closest allies. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports." see that's funny, i thought you traded options. i'm not really a wall street guy.

what's the hesitation? eh, it just feels too complicated, you know? well sure, at first, but jj can help you with that. jj, will you break it down for this gentleman? hey, ian. you know, at td ameritrade, we can walk you through your options trades step by step until you're comfortable. i could be up for that. that's taking options trading from wall st. to main st. hey guys, wanna play some pool? eh, i'm not really a pool guy. what's the hesitation? it's just complicated. step-by-step options trading support from td ameritrade i've been making blades here at gillette for 20 years.

i bet i'm the first blade maker you've ever met. there's a lot of innovation that goes into making our thinnest longest lasting blades on the market. precision machinery and high-quality materials from around the world. nobody else even comes close. it's about delivering a more comfortable shave every time. invented in boston, made and sold around the world. now starting at $7.99. gillette. the best a man can get.

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.

the trump administration took its strongest action yet against russia today for what officials are calling russia's maligned activities around the world, freezing assets of 38 russian officials, oligarchs and entities including vladimir putin's son-in-law, at least he's been estranged from putin's daughter recently. but russian oil company lukoil, one of the leaders of gas prom's board and a key figure in the mueller probe. the treasury department says these sanctions are to punish the kremlin for election meddling against the u.s. and its allies as well as ongoing cyber attacks and its involvement in the assad regime in syria. let's bring in our experts, former acting director of the cia, john mclaughlin. and gardner harris, state

department correspondent for "the new york times." welcome, both. john mcdplauf lyclaughlin, firs really have an impact on the russian economy? >> i think that's hard to gauge, andrea. because sometimes given that the protocol for how we do this by the treasury department was announced in 2014, a number of these individuals will have anticipated an action like this and if they had half a brain they would have moved their assets or disguised them in some way by assigning this toem someo them to someone else. a couple people on this list are still very involved in international commerce who i think will be hit particularly hard. the others i suspect they've hidden their assets to protection hem selvthemselves. talk about deripaska. it is very likely mueller has him in his sights as well.

>> it appears that man moeafort still owes him money, something like $60 million may have changed hands. >> chump change, right? >> chump change between these guys. but still, these guys don't take indebtedness likely. >> another guy on the list, vladimir boganov is a long-time close friend of vladimir putin. what's remarkable about this list is how personal it is with putin. he's -- obviously you've got the son-in-law in there. bogdanov gave a large chunk of his company to putin personally. putin's long-time judo partner is on the list. there's a feeling on this list of we're going after putin personally. we're going after his very closest inner circle and family. even though, as you said, the

son-in-law is somewhat estranged. it is almost the only way to get at putin's family right on the list. so there is a sort of vindictiveness almost to this that shows that the government, even though president trump himself -- and we'll talk about this -- really doesn't talk badly about putin, there is this sort of almost bipolar aspect of the trump administration when it comes to russia. the government itself is really going after putin personally. >> why not putin himself? >> well, he's a head of state. john would know more about this. obviously it is very hard to go after a head of state. and, there are all these rumors, as you though, that putin is the richest man in the world, that he has assets stashed all over the world. it's not something that we as a news organization, or even you as a news organization -- i think we've all tried to find those assets. if he has them elsewhere, he has

them well hidden. but also, as you know, putin and the state of russia are increasingly like the czars of old. there's very little difference between them. >> john, you're nodding. >> well, a very well-placed russian businessman told me -- there may be exaggeration in this -- couple of things. first, that decisions are made in russia generally on friday when putin sits down with five or six of his key associates. well -- >> today's friday. >> today's friday and some of those associates are on this list so they have something to talk about that's a little different than their normal agenda. the second thing -- this is complicated stuff. another russian businessman told me that be careful with sanctions because sometimes in an odd way they strengthen putin because he's the richest man. he's the only individual in russia with the power to sort of shelter us when we get hit with these things. he can arrange things, make certain steps that make it a little less painful for us.

so it is a complicated thing. bottom line though, it is a good thing to have done, particularly the way the treasury department tied this to things that russia has done globally, including crimea, the invasion of ukraine, our election, and so forth. >> and syria. >> and syria. so that's a rather sweeping indictment that we haven't heard out of this administration yet, though, of course, we haven't heard it from the president. >> and the other thing about russian oligarchs is just how predatory they are in russia. so many of these guys basically steal money in russia, and then bring it to the west. they are stashing their wives in the west. they are stashing their mistresses in the west. increasingly they're stashing and trying to hide a lot of their assets in the west. there's pending legislation in congress, in the british parliament, by the way, to try to unmask some of these assets. i mean estimates are, for instance, that just recently as much as $100 million in real

estate in florida alone was purchased by russian oligarchs. they are hiding behind these delaware corporations. whether the united states would be willing to change some of those shield laws to be able to go after more effectively these russian oligarchs is unclear. but it is clear that this sort of very predatory nature of the russian regime makes them particularly susceptible to this sort of, as john knows, hybrid warfare. >> and this is certainly more effective than getting rid of 35 or 60 diplomats. >> yeah. that's cold war. that's cold war. that's reflexive stuff that we do and they do. it is kind of a game, in a way. there is another aspect of this on the theme of "this is complicated," which is that as popular as putin is in russia, when i talk to russians, most of them understand instinctively that it is a very corrupt society and they resent the fact that these people have harvested

so much of the country's wealth. so in an odd way, this ma i -- it may play two ways in russia. putin could say, see, they're beating up on us again and i'll protect mother russia but in their hearts, most russians know this is going after corruption. >> in a word, john, how rich is vladimir putin? estimates? >> it's in the hundreds of -- >> hundreds of bills. >> hundreds of billions. i've seen the figure $300 billion, $400 billion. i don't have the data to prove that. but that's the word on the street. >> as opposed to $80 billion ae supposed to be the richest men in the world. bill gates. >> that's a great comparison. thank you so much. social responsibility. facebook's second in command, sheryl sandberg, on what's being done to protect billions of users' private information but is it enough. stay with us. i have type 2 diabetes.

i'm trying to manage my a1c, and then i learn type 2 diabetes puts me at greater risk for heart attack or stroke. can one medicine help treat both blood sugar and cardiovascular risk? i asked my doctor. he told me about non-insulin victoza®. victoza® is not only proven to lower a1c and blood sugar, but for people with type 2 diabetes treating their cardiovascular disease, victoza® is also approved to lower the risk of major cv events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. and while not for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. (announcer) victoza® is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients.

stop taking victoza® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or symptoms of a serious allergic reaction such as rash, swelling, difficulty breathing, or swallowing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. so stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. gallbladder problems have happened in some people. tell your doctor right away if you get symptoms. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, indigestion, and constipation. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. change the course of your treatment. ask your doctor about victoza®.

do you want the same tools and seamless experience across web and tablet? yes? great! then you're ready for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. sweet! e*trade. the original place to invest online.

facebook's second if command, sheryl sandberg, responding to the cambridge analytica scandal. sandberg telling savannah guthrie on the "today" show this

morning what the social media giant is doing to try to win back the trust of billions of users while acknowledging that more breaches are indeed possible. >> on a scale of 1 to 10, this breach of trust with your users, where would you put it? >> well, we'd put it at the very top of any scale because we take any breach of trust with users that seriously. >> it's a 10. >> we have a responsibility to protect people's data and we have a responsibility for people to know that they can trust using our services, so whether it happens to one person, whether it happens to a lot of people, whether it is on the front page of the newspaper or it just happens to one person, that's always a 10. >> it is a huge breach. is it greed? was it incompetence? when you think big picture, what went wrong? >> what we weren't focused enough on was protecting. because that same data that you enable to use social experiences can also be misused. >> what is the reason it took so

long? you could have done all of this two and a half years ago. >> you're right we could have done this two and a half years ago. >> so why didn't you? >> because we thought the data had been deleted and we should have checked. you are right about that. >> joining me now, nbc's jo ling king and -- jo ling, is saharl sandberg doing enough? all of this leading up to the big show next week where all of these committees will have mark zuckerberg finally. >> sheryl sandberg is really speaking out. i found so interesting is she said she serves at the pleasure of the board of directors at facebook and mark zuckerberg. mark zuckerberg telling us reporters on a conference call a few days ago that he's actually not fired anyone in the wake of this cambridge analytica scandal which by the way harvested the information of now 87 -- or as many as 87 million facebook users. right now it looks like

everything is staying in place. but internally at facebook i can tell you the company is girding. they're restructuring a bit of their strategy internally. >> let's share a little bit more of the interview with savannah abouting her about the zuckerberg testimony. >> mark is going to be testifying before congress. what's facebook's message to congress, and do you think mark needs to apologize in that very public setting? >> mark has apologized and i know he's prepared to apologize in any situation where we have responsibility. mark's message to congress is that he wants to be there to answer all of their questions and he wants to tell them the steps we're taking. >> so, jesse, sandberg next week -- rather, zuckerberg next week testifying. i guess it is going to be a suit and tie day on hill. >> i think it will be. i always listen to the extra words that facebook tends to tuck in when they talk about,

for example if the clip we just heard sheryl saying of course he apologized, he apologized for anything for which we should take responsibility. it is that last clip, "for which he should take responsibility." i'm curious to see what responsibility he takes responsibility for and facebook. >> let's listen to another very interesting question to sandberg about why it took so many losses before they finally responded. >> a cynic would look at this and say, facebook could have done all of this -- every single step -- a long time ago and not until its stock starred tanking did facebook start taking it seriously. you care about privacy now because it is hitting the bottom line hard. >> well, we cared about privacy all along but i think we got the balance wrong. i think we were very idealistic and not rigorous enough. then there is the possible misuse. what we are focused on is making

sure those possible use cases get shut down. savannah, i am not going to sit here and say that we're not going to find more, because we are. >> as jesse just said, jo, you have to look at every word and one of the words that just jumps out at you is "idealistic." the apology is, we were too idealistic? >> well, it is hard to say that when you look at it from a user standpoint or an investor standpoint. i've been talking with early investors in facebook. real disappointment comes from the fact that even though they were being idealistic and pursuing and creating all of these new products for all of us to use, obviously they knew they were gathering a lot of personal information on people and in the wake of so many other breaches and hacks, a lot of customers are asking, well, why didn't you think of the broader context in this current situation leading up to this moment over the past several years. where was the security check. and facebook's response is that they are trying to ramp up security now. but certainly the company has been relatively in disarray when

it comes to having enough security as it relates to the user and your personal information. >> jesse, do you think users are going to be willing, as she also suggested to savannah today, willing to pay extra for privacy? shouldn't that be an entitlement? >> i think that we're not going to see users willing to pay extra for privacy. privacy is one of those challenges because it doesn't have a face that you can identify. it doesn't have a series of things that you can do so that you know you have locked it in. and the truth is, as much as we as users may care about the way in which we feel our privacy was violated, when tomorrow we turn to facebook to do that next thing we want to do and it takes one beat longer than it did last week, we're going to be anowed. we're going to want it to work and we're just going to do what we always do, sign on and use it. >> well, thanks to both of you, jesse and to jo. thanks to you both for trying to sort through this. it will be a big week next week. tune in tonight to hear from tim cook has to say about dijty

privacy, immigration, education and technology in the classroom. msnbc's chris hayes sits down with apple's ceo for "revolution, apple, changing the world," tonight 8:00 p.m. eastern right here on msnbc. coming up next, denial. president trump says he knew nothing about the stormy daniels payment. what does that mean for her legal battle? you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. it takes a lot of work to run this business. but i really love it. i'm on the move all day long. and sometimes, i don't eat the way i should. so, i drink boost to get the nutrition i'm missing. boost high protein nutritional drink has 15 grams of protein to help maintain muscle and 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d. all with a great taste. boost gives me everything i need... to be up for doing what i love. boost high protein be up for it look for savings on boost in your sunday paper. 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. moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis was intense. my mom's pain from i wondered if she could do the stuff she does for us which is kinda, a lot. and if that pain could mean something worse. joint pain could mean joint damage. enbrel helps relieve joint pain, and helps stop further damage enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common. or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. since enbrel, my mom's back to being my mom. visit enbrel.com... and use the joint damage simulator

to see how joint damage could progress. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 18 years.

president trump breaking his silence about stormy daniels during a free-wheeling q&a with reporters aboard air force one. the president claiming he did not know that his own attorney, michael cohen, was paying her off to keep quiet about an alleged affair. >> did you know about the $130,000 payment to stormy daniels? >> no. >> then why did michael cohen make that if there was no -- >> you'd have to ask michael cohen. michael is my attorney and you'll have to ask michael. >> do you know where he got the money to make that payment? >> no, i don't know. >> i'm sorry. did you ever set up a fund -- >> joining me now, barbara mcquaid, former u.s. attorney and nbc contributor. thank you for being with us. there are so many things to unpack here. what did -- what did the president do in saying that he didn't know about it and that they should ask his lawyer? because it seems to me that he

was indicating he was not a party to this contract, the nondisclosure agreement which is at issue in the lawsuit right now between michael cohen and stormy daniels and her attorney. >> absolutely right, andrea. this is i think a great example of why it is lawyers always advise their clients not to talk about matters pending litigation in the public because they might inadvertently say something that's contrary to the position the lawyer wants to take. by saying to the press that he didn't know about the payment, president trump is basically saying he didn't know about the agreement. it is sort of an existential argument but you can't have a contract if one of the parties to the contract doesn't know about it. that shows there's never been a meeting of the minds and this is exactly what stormy daniels is asking for, a ruling that the contract is null and void. and so president trump has just given ammunition to stormy daniels' lawyer to make that

argument. >> and stormy daniels' lawyer did not wait very long. the president was on that plane at 4:30 or 5:00. then at 6:00 eastern on our show, or ari melber's show, "the beat," this is what michael avenatti had to say. >> we waited patiently and, lo and behold, christmas has arrived. president's comments on air force one are serious for him, serious for michael cohen. how can you have an agreement when one party claims that they don't know anything about the agreement? i mean these guys are making it up as they go along. they don't know what to say day in and day out. our case just got a whole lot better. >> now, barbara, there are implications here for michael cohen. because if he is an attorney and he is acting on behalf of his client, donald trump, otherwise known as david dennison, aka, who didn't sign that agreement, then he is agreeing to something without consulting his client, if the president is to be believed. and it also raises the questions

given the timing right before the campaign, is there an illegal campaign contribution involved which was not declared. >> yeah. i think he could have trouble on both fronts. one, ethics rules of most states, including new york where he is a member of the bar, say one, all lawyers have the duty to keep their client apprised of all matters and with two, don't enter into any settlement without the client's input and the client ultimately makes that decision so it seems he's vial laid bo vialviolated both of those ethical rules and violated a campaign law by making a campaign contribution. yesterday michael cohen's lawyer said this wasn't a campaign contribution, this was a contribution to protect the reputation of president trump. well, when that contribution comes on the eve of the election, and it is to protect the president's reputation, then it seems like that is inextri y

inextrickbly intertwined with a campaign donation. >> it sort of brings to mind why john dowd was reportedly arguing before he left the team tat president should not agree to any kind of interview with robert mueller unless compelled to. let's talk about that probe, the mueller probe. there's reporting from bloomberg that there was revelation by mueller to lawyers for manafort that they obtain a search warrant for information, five telephone numbers, suggesting that this information may be heading in a new direction. i don't know what you take from that and also from mcclatchey's reporting that there has been yet another search of manafort. >> yeah. kind of interesting. as part of its routine disclosure of discovery obligations, the mueller team turned over a list of all the search warrants executed in case of paul manafort. one thing that showed up was on march 9th, very recently, they executed these five search warrants in association with five particular phone numbers.

so that says when you're searching phone numbers, there's kind of one of two things you are looking at. one is cell site data to find out where a person might be physically located in march. interesting. or the other could be text messages that are stored that were used on those telephones. so very interesting that these searches were executed march 9th. that suggests that they're continuing to investigate paul manafort, not for things that happened in the past but things that are continuing to go on. so i don't know whether it is additional financial fraud charges, obstruction of justice, or things related to collusion with russia. but very interesting it seems the investigation against paul manafort is not over. >> they're just keeping up the pressure to try to get him to plead. barbara, thank you so much, as always. great to finish up the week with you. and coming up next, scot-free? will president trump give epa scott pruitt a pass from the growing controversy surrounding him? stay with us right here on "andrea mitchell reports."

doct'. when you said you were at the doctor, but your shirt says you were at a steakhouse... that's when you know it's half-washed. now from downy fabric conditioner comes downy odor protect with 24-hour odor protection. downy's powerful formula conditions fibers to lock out odors all day. hey, your shirt's making me hungry. ha ha, derek. downy and it's done.

but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember. president trump is standing by his epa administrator, scott pruitt -- for now. >> i think that scott has done a

fantastic job. i think he's a fantastic person. i just left coal and energy country. they love scott pruitt. >> but the president's denying reports that he's considering actually promoting him to attorney general in place of jeff sessions. this morning tweeting pruitt is totally under siege, this after the list of scandals is growing. today "the new york times" reporting that pruitt reassigned or demosed at least three epa officials when they complained about how he was running the agency and has inside spending. betty woodruff, first to you. what is the health or safety of scott pruitt today? we're now close to 1:00 on friday afternoon, prime firing time at the white house. we haven't checked the tweets in the last ten seconds. >> that's true.

he's on the knife's edge. my understanding based on conversations this morning is that if nothing new about scott pruitt breaks he might squeak through this in large part because the white house doesn't want they're already trying to confirm a va secretary. they have to get pompeo confirmed. they have to get gina haskell confirmed which is going to be a heavy lift. they don't need four cabinet vacancies at once. there's a lot of bitterness in the white house directed at scott pruitt. there's a view he was dishonest, hasn't been forthright about these scandals and if another big story breaks about pruitt if he takes one more hit, it's going to be extremely difficult for him to stick around. >> a lot of people are digging through these details of his personal finances, his relationships, his trip to morocco. jonathan lemire, the fact that he said he has no business with the lobbyist whose wife had rented him the cut-rate condo

and now we understand that there were at least nine major, major companies that this guy was lobbying for, including the lmg experter that was in play on that morocco trip. >> it's a host of ethical questions and concerns. and there's definitely frustration here in the white house with pruitt that he hasn't been totally forthcoming about all of these matters. in some ways comparison to what david shulkin did where he misrepresented what that inspector general report was going to say. it was far more damaging to him than he let on. for pruitt, the similar sense he's not come clean with all that is going on. but i talked to a senior white house official just a short time ago who suggested to echo what was just said there that he's still hanging on. the president is not there yet. in terms of trying -- wanting him out. and the difference is though pruitt has lost a lot of support

inside the west wing, he has a lot of outside allies supporting him who have come -- who have called the president, including some on the hill who say he's doing good work for conservative causes at the epa. the president himself likes the fights he's picked with environmentalists and at least for now, pruitt is okay. but as betsy just said, if other stories drop, at a certain pointe it's going to be hard for this situation to remain tenable. >> speaking of other stories dropping. last night rachel maddow reported what has now been learned which is that on that trip on morocco, they actually missed a 10:25 a.m. saturday flight from paris where they had been overnighting this entire group so they spent another day in paris before flying to morocco. they spent two days, including a saturday night in paris and only one day in morocco on this punitive business trip at first class. and other stories, according to "the wall street journal," white

house chief of staff kelly has now told the president, pruitt has to go. this is a test between the president's instincts, his liking pruitt's deregulation, firing of science advisers, going against climate change. all of the things he's doing that are in themselves controversial, and kelly saying these conflicts of interest are just too serious to ignore. >> exactly. as jonathan hinted at, there's a divide right now between many powerful white house officials, folks close to the president working with him and outside group of allies the president cares so much about. if we're hearing of more of the president's outside supporters really rallying behind pruitt, circling the wagons, that will help him. and if this reporting from the journal is correct, we could see general kelly himself being pitted against some of the most powerful advocacy groups that work in washington today. now another great piece of reporting that jonathan had was about the way kelly is increasingly being sidelined in this white house. i can tell you that's absolutely

correct. it's a big issue and pruitt could be a test. >> to your exclusive reporting about kelly. sidelined. he was not present for that call to putin, one that the president when he went completely against his guidance, against all of the guidance from the national security team. how else is kelly being sidelined and could the scott pruitt test be the real test of whether kelly stays or goes? >> it's certainly no question that john kelly does not have the clout he once did here inside the west wing. he advocated against the hiring of john bolton as national security adviser. he was not in the oval office when the president offered the job to bolton. he wasn't with the president last week at mar-a-lago when he really went to battle on some of the immigration and trade issues. they did speak later by phone but this -- the president has said that he is -- he's told one outside adviser that he's tired of kelly telling him no. and that, therefore, he's sort

of starting to stop telling things to kelly, that he feels sort of -- it's all connected to him feeling more emboldened in the job, more confident in the job. he's weary of the restrictions kelly has tried to put on him, including who he can talk to. it's important for this president to have his network of outside allies and advisers. a number of them kelly tried him to stop seeing or to reduce the number of conversations. corey lewandowski is a great example. someone kelly wanted to keep out of the building but in recent weeks, corey lewandowski has been in here. he's met with the president. reasserted his political influence on donald trump, and it's another sign where john kelly, he is not in danger of being ousted in any day or minute, one says with as much confidence as one can have when it comes to personnel decisions but he is someone that a lot of people in the building feel he's working on borrowed time. kelly himself has told confidantes while he hoped to

make the one-year mark in the job, which would mean july, he now doubts he can get that far. >> jonathan lemire and betsy woodruff, two of the best in the obvious the beat. thank you for sharing. a happy weekend to both of you. we'll be right back. company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do? drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car replacement™, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. smart. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, we'll replace the full value of your car. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. (gasp) (singsong) budget meeting! sweet. if you compare last quarter to this quarter... various: mmm. it's no wonder everything seems a little better with the creamy taste of philly, made with fresh milk and real cream.

let's take a look at some numbers: with the creamy taste of philly, 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom... is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease? preventable. and 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened and help take control of your health. we're life line screening... and if you're over 50... call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more. a hilton getaway means you get more because you get a break on breakfast

get an extra day by the pool get to spend more time together get more from your spring break getaway with exclusive hilton offers. book yours, only at hilton.com

and that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports." remember, follow us online, on facebook and on twitter @mitchellreports. the cherry blossoms are in full

bloom today. get out there and see them if you're here. craig, come on down. >> i'm missing the cherry blossoms. have a great weekend. >> good afternoon. craig melvin here at msnbc headquarters in new york city. mixed messages. conflicting thoughts inside the administration played out publicly. this time on trade. to some, it seems we're on the verge of a trade war with china but president trump's new top economic adviser says we may not actually implement those tariffs at all. and totally under siege. the president defending his epa secretary for the second day in a row even as reports surface that his chief of staff says it's time for scott pruitt to go. so what message is the president sending about corruption and public service? and breaking his silence. 84 days after the news broke about mr. trump's lawyer paying for porn star silence, the president has weighed in but his comments could complicate his own legal battle. we'll get to those