i'm chris jansing in for craig melvin. follow the money. explosive claim from the lawyer for stormy daniels suggesting troubling new connections between that investigation and robert mueller's. half a million dollars from a company controlled by a russian oligarch that made its way to the shell company that paid out daniels' hush money. plus, pompeo to the rescue. bringing home three americans no longer imprisoned in north korea. what that means for a possible one-on-one between president trump and kim jong-un. and undercover and in the shadows. after 30 years-plus as a spy, the president's choice to run the cia introduces herself to america with this -- >> i think you will find me to be a typical middle-class american. >> ah, but one who ran a secret cia prison. what she told congress as gina

haspel steps out of the shadows. start with stormy daniels. donald trump's attorney got about a half million dollars from a company controlled by a russian coal gasoligarch right e 2016 election. nbc news reviewed financial documents that appear to support avenatti's account of those transactions and we just learned, just minutes ago, that pharmaceutical company novartis made payments of $1.2 million to cohen's firm, essential consultants. three times more than originally reported. corporate giant at&t also confirmed making payments. the question is -- why so much money went to cohen's company, and michael avenatti raised a provocative possibility. >> are you suggesting that michael cohen does not have a ph.d. in aerospace technology and pharmaceutical policy? where you're --

>> i won't only suggest it but state that at a fact. >> two real questions, i don't -- >> this guy's the da vinci of our time. >> nbc's kelly o'donnell is at the white house for us. i want to play the comments avenatti made here with lawrence o'donnell last night. take a listen. >> the big question is this -- all of this money comes in to this account. essential consultants llc. we have reason to believe it didn't all go to michael cohen individually. michael cohen needs to disclose where the balance of that money went. fanned it went to donald trump or the trump organization and if michael cohen was part of a scheme to sell access to the president of the united states, that would be rather, a rather shocking development, but i don't think that that is out of the realm of possibility at this point. >> so kelly, fowhat are folks a the white house saying? >> reporter: keeping their distance, you would expect. part of what we piece together here is that the president's lawyer, michael cohen is no

longer working in that capacity according to rudy giuliani who said it would be inappropriate giving the legal matters. cohen in the past sense, one way to distance themselves from cohen. we haven't had yet the opportunity to get on the record responses from the white house about this limited liability corporation that cohen had set up that we know was used for the stormy daniels payment and as the documents indicate, avenatti talks about it, those on our team who reviewed them say the essentials limited liability corporation, consulting group, was receiving these other funds. now, is this selling access to the president? that would be very serious. is it a business transaction where cohen provided some yet to be determined services to these entities? one of the things we can go back to is that in the documents that became public when there was the search of the cohen residence, office and so forth, the

indication and the official prosecutor's language was they were looking at the business dealings of michael cohen. that could fall under that heading, and so it would be likely that prosecutors know many of the answers to the questions posed by the daniels' lawyer, auv navenatti, who got money? did the president get this mun? expect the white house to look for ways to distance itself and new questions surfacing with the revolutions brought forward and seem to be backed up by documentary evidence. chris? >> a lot of questions about the press briefing, pretty late. 3:30, i think. kelly o'donnell, thank you for that. bring in senior fbi official chuck rosenberg now an msnbc contributor. natasha bertrand, msnbc contributor and msnbc legal analyst danny savalas. natasha, a big picture from you. you wrote this morning about the convergence of two scandals. has michael avenatti connected dots between the russia probe

and the cohen investigation? >> he may have. we really don't know at this point. what michael avenatti seems to be suggesting perhaps michael cohen used some of the money received from columbus nova, a term tied to the russian oligarch to reimburse himself from money paid to stormy daniels. in that sense trying to link the two. the real question, was he receiving the money from columbus nova in a matter entirely separate from the stormy daniels deal? for example, to curry favor by viktor vekselberg, this russian oligarch, an attempt by him to get access to the president? now, the stormy daniels and the russia story don't necessarily have to be linked, but the fact that this came from stormy daniels' attorney, of course, is very, very interesting. >> yeah, and let's just be clear about this. she was paid $130,000, danny savalas. we're talking about money far in

excess of that. novartis paid out $1.2 million. we just learned that. to cohen's firm in the year preceding, preceding the termination and issued a statement that reads in part -- novartis determined that michael cohen and essential consultants would be unable to provide the services novartis anticipated related to u.s. health care policy matters and the decision was taken not to engage further. as the contract unfortunately could only be terminated for cause, payments continued to be made until the contract expired by its own term, february 2018. so -- i don't know. this -- i'm not an mba or a lawyer, but you pay somebody $1.2 million. they're not a lobbyist. not even acting as a lawyer. >> no. >> as michael avenatti so colorfully put it, in one of my favorite statements of the day, kind of the da vinci of

basically everything in this. does that make any sense to you? >> either jack of all trades? is he the master of none? or one? because he's not an attorney, as you said. not acting as a -- as a -- consultant or lobbyist. >> yeah. >> but if he is a consultant, the question ultimately becomes, what were the services expected? what were the services provided? and -- >> or not provided in the case, in this case, which they say they didn't get what they paid for. >> because he is, he's acting pursuant to a contract that we would like to see the terms of. what exactly was expected of him, because they say they could only terminate him for cause. sounds like an employer/employee relationship not independent conta contacter. the issue, nature of services provided and ultimately where the money went. you wall, ec consultants, money in its coffers was originally used to pay $130,000 to stormy

daniels. >> isn't that what we believed it was set up for? to pay that money? >> circumstantial evidence made that a very reasonable create ed ten days before the payment was made. thinking it was the only purpose. raises the question, how did they hear of this if it doesn't have a web page and what services was it basing this decision to engage essential consultants if the only prior business it engaged in was stormy daniels-type payment? >> it didn't exist. wasn't experience, chuck, but you are an experienced federal prosecutor. at&t, one of the big companies that paid money to them and gave may a clue what they paid their money for. here's part of their statement -- essential consulting was one of several firms we engaged in early 2017 to provide insights

into understanding the new administration. they did know legal or lobbying work for us, and the contract ended in december of 2017. $200 grand for insights. it you're a prosecutor in this case are you looking at that, saying exactly as michael avenatti is -- did they pay that to buy access? is this pay for play? >> i don't know if it's pay for play yet, chris, but i'll tell you. you can bet your bottom dollar that the folks at novartis and at&t are going to get a bunch of subpoenas from the mueller team and they're going to answer a bunch of questions, because, first of all, i assume all of this has already happened. i assume the mueller team knows a heck of a lot more than we know, and by the way, as we saw in the manafort indictment, in have an uncanny ability to follow the money. to know where the money came from and more important, perhaps, chris, know where the money went. i assume as always we're several steps behind the mueller team in

what we know. >> i assume at some point michael cohen could be asked under oath, what was the expectation? what were you paid this money to do? yeah? >> yeah. i think that's exactly right, and here's the unfortunate thing from a prosecutor's standpoint. we hate investigating our cases in public. right? we want certain things from our witnesses. we want them to be truthful. we want them to be consistent. and we want it to be done quietly or privately. so all of the things that potential witnesses are now saying on the streets of new york, in public, on television, could contradict stuff they say later under oath or to the investigative team and danny knows this as very good defense attorney. defense attorneys can make a lot of hay out of these contradictory statements. there's nothing at all helpful to the prosecution team in investigating this publicly and on the airwaves. >> danny, we've spoken. lots of lawyers have poken admiringly the way michael avenatti is playing this. keeping it in the public eye.

raising a lot of provocative questions. if you're on the other side, robert mueller, do you wish he would shut the heck up? >> probably. or robert mueller may take the position that, hey, we've already got this and we've got a lot more. yes, we would prefer michael avenatti was not out there but maybe mueller thinks michael avenatti has a small fraction of what they've been able to uncover. as well as michael avenatti has done in terms of investigating this issue a, preparing this memo, you can bet that mueller has vastly greater resources. he has the power of the government behind him to obtain these documents and i suspect had this stuff a long time. to the extent people are saying words, inconsistent, could come back to frustrate mueller or make him very happy. >> we heard briefly from a guy who i'm sure is looking at this very closely and you have to wonder if his nervousness level is rising. that is michael cohen. so media caught up with him this morning and asked him about

those documents that avenatti put out there. here's what he said -- >> mr. cohen -- >> great. thank you. >> how do you feel -- >> any response? any response? >> the documents are inaboccura. >> how do you feel about you may have changed an election? >> not too close. not too close. >> chuck what do you suppose that means? it's inaccurate. a document is a document. it is either a legit document or illegitimate document. >> yeah. good question, chris. i don't know what he means, but i think danny's right. mueller has all of this stuff already. the documents are what the documents purport to be. they're going to have the information about where the money came from and where it went. mueller's way ahead of all of

us, as usual. i don't think there's anything helpful about investigating this case publicly. in any sense of the word. but mueller probably has this all locked down, and i wouldn't take michael cohen at his word, particularly as he's walking into a taxi on a new york street. >> natasha, you've been all over this and called michael cohen's attorney steve ryan to ask him exactly the question we want to know about the $500 grand says cohen got from the russian oligarch. he hung up on you? >> he very much did not want to discuss it. this is just when michael avenatti broke the news on twitter essentially. i called up steve ryan's cell and said, what is this about? he said he didn't want to discuss it but did entertain a few of my questions. he said it was not a payment and incorrect to call it a payment. he said he acknowledged this transaction occurred but took issue with calling it a payment. when i spoke to michael avenatti

later he told me to say it was not a payment is completely inaccurate. seems they're parsing a bit but the key is that michael cohen was looking for new clients after the election, and after donald trump's inauguration. and whether or not those new clients like the russian oligarch who hired him and paid him $500,000 were trying to gain access to the administration remains to be seen, but many people in both trump's world and in cohen's world tell me that it seems clear that this was meant to gain access to the president. >> raising a lot more questions that robert mueller may have the answers to but we're still talking about it. thank you all. appreciate it very much. interrogating the interrogator. president trump's pick to lead the cia grilled on capitol hill about her past and future especially regarding torture. >> i can offer you my personal commitment clearly and without

reservation that under my leadership on my watch cia will not restart a detention and interrogation program. >> the secretary of state bringing home three americans who have been in prison in north korea. how they're release came together at the last moment. 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 now has 33% more protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. and it has a guaranteed great taste. man: boost gives me everything i need to be up for doing what i love. boost high protein. be up for it. boost high protein. the full value of your new car? you're better off throwing your money right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with new car replacement, if your brand new car gets totaled, liberty mutual will pay the entire value plus depreciation. liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance.

and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid... ...plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am.

former spy gina haspelhind k about the highly sensitive stuff

she couldn't talk about this as her bid to become the next cia director. not questioning her experience but there are plenty of questions about her involvement in a post-9/11 interrogation program that many called torture. >> i can offer you my personal commitment clearly and without reservation that under my leadership on my watch cia will not restart a detention and interrogation program. >> if this president asked you to do something that you find morally objectionable, even if there is an olc opinion what will you do? will you dhaer ocarry that out, option, that order or not? we're entrusting you to a very different position if confirmed? >> my moral compass is strong. i would not allow cia to undertake activity i thought was

immoral, even if it was technically legal. >> do you believe that the previous interrogation techniques were immoral? >> senator, i believe that cia officers to whom you referred -- >> it's a yes or no answer. >> senator, i think i've answered the question. >> no, you've not. >> senator, i believe that we should hold ourselves to the moral standard outlined in the army field manual. >> ken delanian joins me now after having watched all of that happening there. what did we learn? what else did we learn, besides what we just heard there? what are your big takeaways, ken. >> reporter: we learned there is still a great fault line over what the cia did to detainees after 9/11. as a nation we are confronted with threats from iran, north korea, china, russia. almost no questions about those subjects to a woman who could be the next cia director. almost all questions devoted to

what rule did she play in the brute's interrogation techniques and what did she feel about it? she said some things democrats wanted to hear. the cia will not go down the road again, it's against the law. even if president trump wanted to bring this back, asked her to do it she would resist, but on this question what did she personally feel about the techniques, were they moral, immoral? she refused to answer. we have sound from the senator from new mexico trying to get an answer to that question. let's take a listen. >> i know you believed it was legal. i want to see -- i want to feel, i want to trust, that you have the moral compass you said you have. you're giving very legalistic answers to very fundamentally moral questions. >> senator, you know, we've provided the committee every evaluation since my training report when i first joined in 1985, in all of my assignments i

have conducted myself honorably and in accordance with u.s. law. my parents raised me right. i know -- i know the difference between right and wrong. >> reporter: the reason that's so important, chris that question, which she really didn't answer is because she ran a black site where a detainee was waterboarded. do you think that was moral? senator reid asked what if one of your relatives were waterboarding? is that beyond the pail? we prosecuted for doing this to japanese war criminals. a debate not settled in the country and the open question is whether it will be enough for democrats to consistently vote against her in this confirmation battle. >> thank you so much, ken delanian. appreciate it. two great guests to talk about all this. real insiders, alberto mora, human rights policy at the kennedy school and former general counsel for the u.s.

navy. michael baker, former cia covert operations officer started in training with gina haspel. now president of diligence llc, global intelligence and security firm. important stuff to talk about. start withalberto. back in march when gina haspel was nominated, it read she bears great responsibility for a program famous for savagery and consistent ill judgment. also nearly 100 former ambassadors echoed some of your concerns. did you hear anything today as you listened to this hearing that would convince you otherwise, she is the person to lead the cia? >> not yet. the issue of torture was danced around but didn't close with it. the issue, whether she tortured or not.

if she tortured, managed, she's disqualified from being not only director of the cia or holding any position of responsibility in the federal government. and we didn't get into the details of the abuse given to the detainees under her direct supervision. that's the crux of the issue before the senate today. >> do you assume that's what they're doing now? getting to the heart of that? >> i think so. she was asked a lot of questions about morality. as your correspondent indicated, didn't answer any of those questions. claimed to know the difference between right and wrong. if she tortured somebody that's a false and misleading answer and can't be true. you can't claim yourself to be a moral person and have tortured an individual. doesn't make sense. >> michael, you've known her, worked with her. she presented herself as a middle-class american, breaker of glass ceilings for women and very forcefully, repeatedly, said she's somebody with a strong, moral compass yet wouldn't answer that question about torture.

it was asked several times, about looking back. were the post-9/11 techniques moral? is it enough to say, "my parents raised me right and i have a strong moral compass"? >> well, we're wading into odd and squishy territory here. what you're saying is you want your intelligence service, your operational personnel who are operating out there to base their actions on how they feel about something at any given moment. >> she's the one who brought it up repeatedly. she brought it up. a strong moral compass. >> right. and she also -- >> knows the difference between right and wrong. >> and paired that with, she is loyal to the american people and the constitution and the laws of the land. i know alberto knows at that time, and seems to get lost in the wash occasionally, senator warner mentioned it during opening comments. a comment that well, i know that people involved in this program

in counterterrorism, believed they were doing the right thing. well, no. told they were doing the legal thing by the department of justice. by the office of legal counsel. that's how it works. if anybody took the time to read all the memos released over a period of time, they would see the extent of the back and forth over the clear and unambiguous direction that was given by the office of legal counsel, by the department of justice, that was done here. now i don't know how many different ways gina haspel, sided by democrats and republicans as probably the most qualified person to come up here. i don't know how many times she can say we're not walking back down that road again. not going back there. people still like to bring it up. of course, the optic would be out there and people want to talk about this. i finish with one point. from my experience, i want somebody leading an organization like this who has learned from

experience. not learned from some academic or theoretical position or from a comfy chair in an office somewhere. she has learned, and the agency learned, very difficult lessons from the past. and she's been very clear that we're not going back there. laws have changed. the belief -- the understanding what was wrong with that program has developed, and, you know, again, i don't know how many times she's going to have to repeat that. >> one of the things she said, we did get valuable information from detainees. whether or not certain interrogation techniques were the reason why we got that information. she said, that's not knowable. but i wonder alberto, i mean, there is also a contextual part of this which is, post-9/11, people were in a very different place. there was a lot of fear. there were legitimate concerns about who was out there and what they were doing. is it fair to judge her by today's standards for what happened post-9/11, and she did

state unequivocally, repeatedly, that torture is not acceptable and something she would not do. >> well, she has done it. so -- this is why the question is about morality and understanding how she could say that now and yet have committed torture before. doesn't make any sense. back to that. first, everybody was concerned. felt fury after 9/11. i was in the pentagon when the aircraft hit. the next two years of my life started every morning with intelligence briefs trying to understand the threat domestically and internationally. it was severe. soon as i saw the intensive interrogation, every military personnel saw the techniques and understand the context we all knee it potentially authorized torture and saw what was actually done to the detainees we confirmed it was torture. gina haspel may have been given the green light on techniques but always knew torture was always a criminal act and had to

manage her program making sure the torture line was never crossed and it was crossed under her direction. >> she said her team suggested to her she would declassify some of her operational history to help her nomination but in the long run says it would be harmful, michael. having said that, i think -- i'm not a fan of necessarily quoting movies, because movies are, you know, pretty broad, generalizations of maybe something that's more entertaining than it's 100% truthful, but i thought of at the time was "a few good men." you can't handle the truth. is this a question for you, post-9/11, some people had to go out there and do things that would make a lot of folks uncomfortable but in the end made us safe? >> i think that i'm not sure about that now. you can't handle the truth. the reasons for not disclosing reasons and methods are clear and longstanding. not something that's come up over the course of this hearing. >> the other part of that,

details what she did and didn't do. >> which are being disclosed right now in the closed session meetings. the senators are the representatives of the american people and that's theoretically their job. take that information that is deemed, again, according to longstanding precedent and protocol what is classified and make determinations. they're doing that, i'm sure, right this very minute as they listen to a great deal of classified information being discussed. again -- you know, i understand the sort of the nature, understand the desire somehow for some folks to revisit these issues. this question that alberto keeps bringing up, she engaged in torture. i don't know whether -- we're not getting past the -- the divide there. that exists. you know, they acted in the -- the wake of 9/11, as you pointed out. the context is entirely different. maybe a lot of people moved on,

forgotten, if a teethed of this. don't want to think about it. i'll say this also. people talk about morals. back to the squishy subject, how did you feel about this? the reality of the world is that values and beliefs and -- and what we're willing to do will change from time to time. based on the threat we're faced with. we don't like to think that our values and morals, no. they stand firm. no. sometimes the realities of what we're faced with change and if the laws change -- >> 30 seconds left. i want alberto to be able to answer that. is it fair, again, to look at something that happened post-9/11 in the context of today? >> the standard hasn't changed. the standard was the same then as it is today. we're just trying to understand what it was she did. let's make sure what we're about. the united states is about protecting human dignity under the rule of law. what we do domestic and internationally. not in the business of making

the world safe by torture. if you can say torture like 9/11 or at any other time they didn't have the right to be free from cruelty, if that's true, we don't have the right to be free from cruelty. she seems to forget the second part, that part of the oath when she acted as she did. >> i take strong objection to what he's just said. again, i would finish off if possible with the fact that we've been clear about this. hard lessons learned. she is absolutely the right choice to lead this agency going forward into the future. this is about the future not walking back down a road revisited and written about and studied add nauseam but she is the person to bring truth and integrity and courage going into the job. >> probably what's going on behind closed doors as well. appreciate you both coming on the show. coming home. three americans detained in north korea on a plane back to the u.s. as we speak.

how the trump administration secured their release. needles. essential for the cactus, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell you doctor if you were in a region where

fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some things. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™".

your hair is so soft! ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. did you use head and shoulders two in one? i did mom. wanna try it? yes. it intensely moisturizes your hair and scalp and keeps you flake free. manolo? look at my soft hair. i should be in the shot now too. try head and shoulders two in one.

three american prisoners freed from north korea on their way home right now. learned of this in a president's tweet this morning.

i am pleased to inform you secretary of state mike pompeo is in the air on the way back from north korea with the three wonderful gentlemen everyone is looking so ford to meeting. they seem to be in good health and good meeting with kim jong-un. date and place set. also added -- secretary pompeo and his guests will be landing at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. i will be there to greet them. very exciting. pompeo, of course, secretly traveled to north korea monday night to meet with kim jong-un. the reference there. his second trip in recent weeks. joining me now, senior research at m.i.t. security studies program. good to see you. one of a handful of americans who traveled to north korea for talks about nuclear issues. what do you make of the decision to let the prisoners go? >> i must say, i've been on a bit of an emotional roller coaster. in less than 24 hours we have a -- i've worked on iran and north korea for almost 20 years, and in less than 24 hours the

president violated the international nuclear a agreement with iran. sad, and then brought these three americans back home. great. so i'm very excited about it. i think it's great news for every american. i sort of expected it. this is a summit process that is building and both sides seem to be doing their best or all sides seem to be doing their best to try to make it a successful summit. and to do that, they were going to have to release those three detainees. so good news. not surprising, but very good news. >> and all three are said to be in good health and the president says they'll announce this date and time for his meeting with kim jong-un. mike pompeo tweeted, i had a productive meeting in pyongyang with chairman kim jong-un and made progress. i'm delighted to bring home three americans. how does this set the stage for that meeting? >> well, i think the north koreans have done a series of things. sometimes we forget what they've done. this is only the most reerccent.

it started when they told their south korean colleagues, yeah, it's okay. we'll meet even if you have military exercises. that's okay. one concession. then, yes, willing to talk about nuclear denuclearization. second concession, and third, freeze all missile tests for the foreseeable future, and then they've released detainees. what does that tell me? there's a big debate in washington whether the north koreans are serious or not, whether it's game to try to undermine sanctions. frankly, we don't know the answer. what we can say, though, with a lot of evidence that i've mentioned is that the north koreans are serious about the meeting. they want this summit to go well. they have done a lot to prepare for it, as have the south koreans, and they've done a lot to try to put the trump administration, i would say in a good mood or in a good frame heading towards these negotiations. >> well to that point, listen to what the president said last

hour during his cabinet meeting. he was asked if he deserves the nobel peace prize after the prisoner release. here's what he said. >> everyone thinks so, but i would never say. you don't know -- what i want to do. i want to get it finished. the prize i want is victory for the world. not for even here. i want victory for the world because that's what we're talking about. so that's the only prize i want. >> we'll leave the nobel up to the nobel committee, but do you think we're in a position here, a lot of people were skeptical about, that real change could happen? >> oh, i think it's always a possibility. i've said for years, one way to test the north koreans is to sit down and talk to them. put the proposition on the table, and force them to decide whether they're going to bargain or whether they're going to walk away from bargaining. i've always believed in diplomacy. hold your friends close and your enemy closer. speaking of diplomacy, a

brilliant pete of state craft when president moon of south korea floated the idea nominating the president for a nobel prize. a psychological strategy, a political strategy meant to sort of set up a meeting that goes well and then the president will embrace it as his victory, and then it will be sustained, because the bureaucracy will attack it and others attack what comes out of that meeting, were ut if he is committed to it personally, underline personally, it gives something a shot to actually succeed in this weird, weird world that we live in. >> jim walsh, thank you so much. >> thank you. a night mayor scenario for the gop may have been avoided. an ex-con candidate will not be on the ballot for the u.s. senate in west virginia. how do democrats adjust their game plan ahead of midterms based on these new primary results? when i found out i had age-related macular degeneration, amd,

i wanted to fight back. my doctor and i came up with a plan. it includes preservision. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd. that's why i fight. because it's my vision. preservision. try areds 2 + multivitamin. with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses,

i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan

might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel - and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now - and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is.

when you see some of the lowest options fees in the market and no platform fees? is it happy? good. then it's time for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. e*trade. the original place to invest online. some big takeaways from the fascinating slate of primaries. first, republican leaders are clearly breathing a sigh of relief today after the defeat of doug blankenship, a smackdown from mitch mcconnell. we'll get to that. the biggest result, issue a tough warning to washington insiders and specifically members of congress that a lot of voters are sick of you and partisan inaction. with me now to break it down is msnbc national political

correspondent steve ckornacki, and also an msnbc contributor. steve, start with the premise in our political unit. if you're perceived as business as usual, a washington insider, watch out. what happened last night that might lead to that conclusion? >> yeah. i think there's complexity to it. the obvious one here is indiana. the republican senate primary. what you had, two republican members of congress. both lost it a guy who sort of fashioned himself as the ultimate outsider. mike brawn. businessman, cardboard cutouts of these two, mocked them, one pretty well. the difference with braun, we've seen this before. sometimes it makes the republican establishment uneasy. braun at least right now doesn't have the markings of one of those outsider candidates who will have extra trouble in a general election. this is a race here in a state that donald trump won by 19 points. republicans saying they, the

incumbent is a fluke senator. braun on paper may not -- we'll see what happens in this campaign. maybe something comes out. that happens sometimes. this might be a stronger outside candidate. the other thing in west virginia, a lot of attention obviously on the congressman jenkins, who lost this race. be a little careful. the state attorney general, the weapon, one of the weapons joe manchin will use against him this fall used against him in the fall. made a lot of money in washington as a lobbyist will come up. jenkins, strongest in the part of the state where that anti-washington, anti-mcconnell message played well. the southern part of the state. coal country. might be a little more complex there in west virginia and, excuse me, in indiana, being an outsider, that kind of anti-establishment message might actually work this fall. >> one of the interesting things is that americans in the polls, josh, often hate congress generally. approval ratings in the teens but like their own congressmen. should there be a little

concern, at least among some members of congress, that frankly people are fed up? >> yeah. i think a key takeaway from these primaries for me, you had four credible candidates sitting members of the u.s. house of representatives who all lost their races. you had that indiana primary, luke messer and both members of congress overcome by mike braun. argument, basically congress is there. didn't repeal obama care, cut spending's not building the wall. this stuff congress isn't achieving. saw it there. jenkins lose out to the attorney general. establishment candidates in a certain way but morrissey able to run against washington because he's from outside washington and robert pittenger, congressman in north carolina lost a primary to an outside challenger. a fine night for much of the gop establishment but a wuarning sin about congress. congress is not popular, not achieving the goals sent to washington to achieve.

seemed it could because of republicans haven unified control of government. that worriies certain members i congress. >> and steve blankenship, president trump lobbied for voting for either of the others. not for him. lesson learned. >> a great mystery and never be able to say definitively. the story, cautionary tale going forward. the public polling on this race. what it showed, blankenship running a distant third. the catch was this. the last public poll in this race, had to go out 10, 14 days before the eelection. right up to the primary date, no polling. we had records, anecdotal reports about internal polls and republicans sounding the alarms blankenship is surging. maybe theoretically surging and trump with the tweet and other attention nipped it in the bud or maybe wasn't much of a surge

after all. the lesson i take, get that disconnect, even if as was the case here, public polling distant out from the election, err on the side of listening to that let's err on the side of being skeptical of the internal polling. >> let me play exactly what blankenship said last night about the loss. >> i don't have any idea really what happened. i think trump could have been a big factor. he's 84% positive among the republican party. >> one thing he's said, he's trumpier than trump. the fact of the matter is -- and it's worth noting -- in a lot of places, donald trump remains incredibly popular among republicans. i know we always say it is about turnout, in the end. but if you're one of these swing districts, donald trump sometimes is still a lot more popular than i think those of us who look at the big picture in the national polls realize. >> absolutely.

it is one of the stories for democrats this fall, west virginia is a perfect example of this. joe manchin trying to hang on to this seat. it is a state that donald trump won by 42 points in 2015. only wyoming had a bigger margin there for donald trump. if you're manchin with being you wa -- you want to get re-elected, you got to win over a lot of those folks. west manchin is usually relied on in west virginia. but if there is one silver lining for democrats in this result it is more seats, to the extent they are suburbs of washington, d.c. and pittsburgh, west virginia, that's where morrisey did terribly. he was running behind blankenship down here. you call them swing voters in west virginia. they voted for trump by big numbers and manchin by big numbers. that's going to decide this big senate race. that's why democrats spent money i think making sure jenkins wasn't a nominee.

>> mccowan responds with this -- after being called cocaine mitch. that was good. is this about mcdonnell saying we got this and this is okay, or is blankenship such an outlier and the republicans still so burned by the roy moore thing that we really learn nothing from this race? >> this is not a new story for mitch mcconnell. this goes all the way back to the 2010 cycle where you have these insurgent candidates running against incumbent republicans from the right saying that republicans in the senate are not doing enough to advance a conservative agenda. in some cases when those candidates have won they've been very damaging and caused republicans to lose the general election, going back, todd aiken, richard mourdock in indiana six years ago which is how joe donnelly became a senator from indiana in the first place. this is a fight mcconnell's been fighting for a long time. he's won more of those fights than he's lost lately, with roy

moore being an exception. but that's to say, a few years ago maybe a politician would say i shouldn't put out a cloud of picture walking through a cloud of cocaine. that may not be good for my image. but do the kcocaine photo. we've seen what you can get away with. >> the fact it is mitch mcconnell. okay. speaking of public discourse, with stormy daniels and michael cohen dominating headlines, president trump again goes on twitter, again taking a swipe at the media, quote, the fake news is working overtime. just reported that despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy and all things else, all things else -- 91% of the network news about me is negative. fake. why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is so corrupt? take away credentials? peter nicholas, white house reporter for the "wall street journal." peter, look. we know the president watches a

lot of television in spite of his protests saying he doesn't. is this about him feeling pressure of everything that's going on, including obviously multiple investigations? what's about this lashing out at the media, today in particular? >> well, i think that at the's obviously frustrated with press coverage. he has been since day one. he wants better press coverage. he puts a lot of stake and faith in the media. he has a media background himself obviously. but put things in perspective. after he won the election his aides talked about kicking press entirely out of the white house putting us in the old executive office building across the street. they talked about doing away with assigned seating in the white house press briefing room and it never happened. they never followed through on any of those threats. >> yeah. i wonder, is this just him appealing to his base again or do you think he's at a point where he is so frustrated that maybe they will start pulling some credential zblz? >> i think this is more along the lines of appealing to his base. let's keep this in perspective.

he is in many ways more accessible than even his predecessor, barack obama. he talks to -- he meets privately with lawmakers at the white house. he meets with his cabinet. he invites the press in. he lets the press stay and ask questions. his aides often try to shoo us out of the room. trump continues to field questions. so i think he would miss the press dearly if we were gone. it might be a case of be careful what you wish for, mr. president. you yank our credentials and you might find you kind of miss the attention and press that you were getting. >> the white house correspondents association responded to the tweet. "some may excuse the president's inflammatory rhetoric about the media. but just because the president does not like news coverage does not make it fake. a free press must be payable to report on the good, the bad, momentous and mundane without fear or favor. the president preventing a free and independent press from covering the workings of our republic would be an

unconscionable assault on our first amendment. i don't think there are many people who would necessarily disagree with that but how tough is it there? >> well, it would be tough. i would say his staff can be accessible but i think demonizing the press through these tweets is hard on the individual reporters. but it is also kind of, strangely and bizarrely, it is kind of attention that also promotes and showcases our work in some paradoxical way. sort of a mixed bag. >> peter nicholas, thank you so much. great to see you. we'll be right back. storms by an insurance company that knows the weather down to the square block. this is a diamond tracked on a blockchain - protected against fraud, theft and trafficking. this is a financial transaction secure from hacks and threats others can't see. this is a patient's medical history made secure - while still available to their doctor at their fingertips. this is an asteroid live-streamed to millions of viewers from 220 miles above earth.

this is ai trained by experts in 20 industries. your industry. hello. this is not the cloud you know. this is the ibm cloud. the cloud that's built for all your apps. ai ready. secure to the core. the ibm cloud is the cloud for smarter business. ♪ ♪

- anncr: as you grow older, -your brain naturally begins to change which may cause trouble with recall. - learning from him is great... when i can keep up! - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. - she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

that's going to wrap up this hour of msnbc live. look who's here! miss katy tur. >> hi, chris jansing. always lovely to see you. thank you very much. it is 11:00 a.m. out west and 2:00 p.m. in washington. the nominee to be the next cia director, gina haspel on capitol hill today after her confirmation hearing. as expected, she was confronted about enhanced interrogation and her role in destroying video evidence of torture. also, major news today at this hour. secretary of state mike pompeo is en route back to the u.s. from north korea with three released detainees. their freedom paves the way for the upcoming summit between president trump and kim jong-un. and a day after violating the iran nuclear deal, president trump sent this strong warning to iran. >> what are you going to do if iran stars up their nuclear program again? >> we'll find out. we are going to find out.