ardent fox suppo ardent supporters. president trump woke up to withering headlines for accepting vladamir putin's denial of election meddling over the universal assessment of the u.s. intelligence community. the president engaged in feeble cleanup this afternoon. >> i have full faith and support for america's great intelligence agencies. always have. and i have felt very strongly that while russia's actions had no impact at all on the outcome of the election, let me be totally clear in saying that, and i said this many times, i accept our intelligence community's conclusion that russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place. it could be other people also. there's a lot of people out there. there was no collusion at all.

and people have seen that, and they've seen that strongly. the house has already come out very strongly on that. a lot of people have come out strongly on that. i thought i made myself very clear by having just reviewed the transcript. i have to say, i came back and i said what is going on? what's the big deal? so i got a transcript i reviewed and i went out and i reviewed a clip of an answer that i gave. and i realized that there is a need for some clarification. it should have been obvious, i thought it would be obvious, but i would hike to clarify just in case it wasn't. in a key sentence in my remarks, i said the word "would" instead of "wouldn't." the sentence should have been i don't see why it wouldn't be russia. so just to repeat it, i said the word would instead of wouldn't, and the sentence should have been, and i thought i would be

maybe a little bit unclear on the transcript or unclear on the actual video, the sentence should have been, i don't see any reason why it wouldn't be russia. sort of a double negative. so you can put that in, and i think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself. >> yeah, that's a lie. you know how long it takes when you're a president to get a clip of your press conference? about 60 seconds. we just learned that that stunning attempt at cleanup, most of it read from prepared remarks, followed an unscheduled meeting this morning of national security advisers concerning russia. here to react are peter baker, robert costa, frank sigluzi, and with us at the table, jonathan lemaire.

let me start with you. first of all, congrats on the courage award. we've been watching that clip over and over again. but just on the breaking news this afternoon, that the president met with his national security team this morning. it's a flagrant lie and shameless lie to say he had to pull a transcript to pull what he said. the reaction was instant. he couldn't have even been in the motorcade before his staff would have gone to him and say that landed with a thud you siding with vladamir putin over dan coats and the intelligence community. so what gives with the web of lies he tried to weave today? >> that excuse defies all believability, because even if he did misspeak in that one sentence, to take that as fact means you had to ignore the rest of the press conference. >> and i worked on the white house staff for a president that actually misspoke, never to side with vladamir putin, but he did misspeak. you tell them the minute they walk off the set. someone like donald trump, a showman to his core, would have

walked back to the podium and cleaned it up if he regretted what he said. >> reportings are initially that he liked what he said on air force one. and slowly, in a series of phone calls on the plane as we flew back and talking to staff, there was suggestions that this is not being received well. >> and what might have given it away was that fox news thought it sucked, too. how did the base busting atmospherics of today, the fact that all his safe spaces weren't so safe, he woke up to a rebuke from "the wall street journal," he put his friends at fox news in the uncomfortable position of trying to defend the indefensible yesterday, and even people that take to that network and others, people like newt gingrich and others, unable to defend the president's remarks yesterday. >> here at the capitol, it's clear that a chorus of republicans are telling the president and the white house that they're disappointed with how he handled the meeting with president putin. at the same time, when you talk

to people who have spoken to the president like senator rand paul of kentucky, they're encouraging the president that he did a fine job. senator paul said he would like to see more cultural exchange with russia. and you have other senators and house members telling me here at the capitol they think the president is just fine. a few months before the midterm elections, many republicans are sticking by the president. but it's the main stream republicans who are raising alarm say thing is a turning point. they say the president crossed a line. >> and frank, i watched you last night. you thought that he spoke clearly and revealed himself. so the idea that today we're supposed to believe that in a prepared statement by staff that maybe more alarm than some of the republicans that robert costa just named, trying to clean something up, that if you look back at charlottesville and "access hollywood," when the president is forced to apologize

for something that he's not sorry is the cover that unravels him. do you think we'll see him revert back to believing vladamir putin? >> i don't think he's moved off of that point to be honest. this is exactly why the president can never submit to an interview with bob mueller. if this were in a deposition setting with mueller and his team and a court stenographer, this is perjury. so compaessentially we have per here. this is the problem his lawyers are wrestling with. with regard to the presser with putin, he threw out the presser. he continually refused to embrace the findings of the u.s. intelligence community. later in the presser, never mind this so-called misstatement, he was asked whether or not he believes u.s. intel or putin, and he said, i've got u.s. intel and i've got putin. and i have confidence in both parties. that's not embracing u.s. intelligence.

so a clarification of one word is not helping. >> peter baker, take us inside what you know to be the details of this emergency meeting of his national security staff today, and any red flags that they raised about the fallout. i thought it was remarkable that dan coats put out the statement yesterday that he stood by the assessment of the intelligence community. and i heard from inside the president's orbit who said that his refusal to accept any kinding of the intelligence community where it pertains to russia has been his set point since before he was elected. >> absolutely. there's nothing new in what he said yesterday. it is consistent with what he has said before. and what's remarkable about this meeting today and about this administration for 18 months, is you have a president who is surrounded by people who don't see it the same way unanimously. dan coats, john bolton, john kelly, mike pompeo, you know,

these are not friends of russia. these are not people who think vladamir putin is a friend. and at one point, h.r. mcmaster was quoted as having said, you know, he wants to be friends with putin, and i don't know why he would want to be. this is a consistent theme of his since he became president. he did not want to confront vladamir putin on this. take away the sentence he says was mangled, and the rest of the press conference still stands. he was offered a chance by jonathan's question to say would you condemn russia here and now for what they did? instead of doing that, he condemned the fbi for investigating it. you can see why john bolton, a long-time russia skeptic or mike pompeo would be alarmed by this and try to nudge him back onto at least safer territory. >> jonathan, let's go back to the question that you asked. did you have the sense when he answered that he had misspoken or from here, it all hung together quite well? >> certainly not. there was no suggestion that he

misspoke. >> anyone talk to you on the trip back and say we pulled the transcript and we don't think that's what the president meant to say? >> not at all. >> anyone call you this morning and say we looked at that exchange again? >> nope. this is them trying to do some sort of damage control that, again, doesn't work when you take the press conference in its full context. this is what he said. this is what he said before. what is so stunning he said it yesterday just a mere feet away from vladamir putin, the man behind the election interference according to the intelligence agent sis. but president trump chose not to say he believed the intelligence agencies over vladamir putin. >> frank, something else that doesn't add up is that the press conference came after a lengthy, private, bilateral meeting between the two men. so i'm guessing that what the president said in public mirrors what he conveyed in private. can you talk about what we should expect to be the fallout from the fact that that meeting

was private and that what he said publicly seems to indicate that his true feelings are what he articulated in response to jonathan's question, not what he tried to muddy the waters with today. >> well, you're getting to actually a legal concept, which is a spontaneous utterance. it's close in time, right after an event. so yes, it's going to accurately recount the event that just happened. unfortunately, it's our only window and insight into what transpired in that two-hour meeting is that pressure. we don't know if it's an accurate reflection or not but left to wonder what concessions are made, what putin said, what they didn't say. whether or not mueller is paying attention to the fact that there is translators in the room that might have heard something significant or pertinent to his case. we don't know. but we do know that statement immediately after the event is likely to be far more accurate than anything after that statement. >> after his -- i guess the parallel would be lawyers, after

his press people got to him and laid out the size and scope of the fallout. some of the fallout, robert costa, is secretary of state mike pompeo has been asked to appear before the senate foreign relations committee at a public hearing next wednesday to talk about how some of these private one on one meetings came to be, how the president came to make these statements. and that was something that i believe lindsey graham asked for. can you talk about the pockets of the republican party, where his performance yesterday has given them pause? >> so many republicans in the senate, i spoke to senator graham, they have different views on whether they like what the president did or not with regard to the putin meeting. but they have a constitutional role, check and balance of the executive branch. senator graham says pompeo, the secretary of state, has to come and address were there any deals struck. this was a long meeting with president putin, and senate republicans feel like they have not been fully briefed by the

president or white house about any side deals or evolving agreements with the russian government. they feel like it's their role to bring the secretary of state in front of the senate foreign relations committee to see what the president was up to policy wise. >> well, peter baker, it seems like the senate republicans, if they're crafty and clever, could call vladamir putin and ask him for the recording that a lot of intelligence experts believe exist on the part of the russians for that meeting. do you have any sense that the white house is aware of the fact that they were likely gamed by the russians? >> well, look, i would be surprised if there wasn't a recording of it. b >> explain why. i mean, why? vladamir putin is a former kgb agent. people that know vladamir putin understand that, but explain for our viewers of course there is a recording. >> i lived there for four years and they have recordings of things that happened in my apartment. if they taped things in my apartment, i'm sure they taped

things from vladamir putin and the things said to president trump. the question is whether or not john bolton or staff went to the translator, our translator, the american translator and got a readout from that translator. did they try to reconstruct the memorandum of conversation that would have taken place after a meeting or not. you're going to want to know if you're the staff what the president said and what he might have indicated and promised, what might have been seen as a promise, what kind of commitments president putin might have made. there's so many important topics on the table -- >> can i stop you, though. you're already at a strategic disadvantage. you have the russians, who probably have a recording as you just said, and you have john bolton running to the translator asking for a memo of what went down. why did they let this happen? >> i don't think they had a choice. if you had asked them, they would not have wanted it to go this way. it's not that presidents haven't

from time to time had one on one conversations with russian leaders. they have. president reagan did. but none of them were under suspicion the way this president is, lending themselves to conspiracy questions, not to mention a president who is so willing to go off script and make spontaneous utterances, to use a phrase, or spontaneous deals. >> former cia director brennan speaking about the likelihood of a tape and talk about it on the other side. >> mr. putin is a skilled and trained kgb officer, a master manipulator who has decades of experience. president trump is way out of his depth with mr. putin. what are president trump said in that meeting with mr. putin is now memorialized on russian tape. and it will be used as necessary by mr. putin against president trump. >> frank, we've got that and

we've got russian foreign minister serge lavrov, who was in the oval office for donald trump relieved he had fired jim comey because he was a nutjob. lavrov's readout of the talks is that they went "better than super." is it your assessment that the russians gamed president trump? >> well, let me say this first, i agree with john brennan that trump was outmatched in this meeting. but with regard to outgaming trump, trump just outgamed himself. he's allowed himself to be put in a compromised position. you can see how easily compromised this president is. he's now gone on public record saying i misspoke, i didn't mean to say that. but yet we know that putin has to have a tape of what went on in their private meeting. if indeed it contradicts this correction today, then putin's got him once again. he's fallen into this trap. so we don't need putin to trap

the president. the president has compromised himself today. >> let me just press you on that. there's a lot of speculation that at the root of this trump-putin relationship lies some compromising information. you just gave us another example that that effort could be ongoing on vladamir putin's part. he recorded the meeting. he today i'm sure knows that the president tried to walk back what he was so widely condemned for saying yesterday. so he may have added to the leverage that he has over this president. >> there's no question -- look, we've got a president who is in a tenuous place right now. the allies are upset. our adversaries are having private meetings with him. i hope he didn't misspeak in his private meeting with kim jong-un regarding denuclearization. i hope he didn't say, i wouldn't like to see denuclearization when he meant that i would like to see denuclearization. we don't know what went on. he doesn't want us to have that

kind of transparency. and in part, it's because he needs to be the winner and this one, when he comes out and announces things are all better with russia, as he did with north korea, as he did with nato and g7, everything is better with trump, we don't know the truth because we were not in that room. >> let me just ask you, because you put a lot of this in motion with your question for him. did you have any conversations with anyone after that exchange where they expressed any sort of misgivings about the answer he had given? i just want to put the moment in the truthful context, because i think this is going to be another example of the cover-up of what they tried to do today, being the brighter flashing red light for his misconduct if it turns out to be than what he said yesterday. >> i think it was very striking how we didn't see anyone from the white house. >> did you hear from anyone? >> no interaction afterwards. the pool held afterwards -- no one came in, no briefing, nothing. there was no attempt to explain

anything. the new nec communications director didn't come in. none of that happened. the entire flight back, which was eight plus hours in the air, sarah sanders came back for 30 seconds to hand out a printed copy of the president's tweet that he printed out on air. he suggested that he trusted my intelligence officers. very clearly suggesting he did not suggest those -- to trust those who worked for barack obama. >> the problem is they came to the same conclusion. >> they did. >> does he know that? >> it's unclear. anything associated with obama is bad, anything associated with his presidency is good. >> thank you both. when we come back, team u.s. may have just nabbed a russian spy. and in the category of you can't make this stuff up, she once

questioned donald trump at a political conference. also ahead, the special counsel seeks immunity for up to five people in the manafort trial. what could they know? fact checking the president as what he describes as his full faith and support for the american intelligence community. it's single-origin kenyan coffee from the nyeri highlands, 6,000 feet above sea level. but how do you really know that the beans journeyed to the port of mombasa and across the pacific? that you can trust they're 100% authentic? ibm blockchain. a smart way to track every step, ensuring this coffee did indeed come from 6,000 feet above sea level. and not a foot lower. ♪ ♪

you might or joints.hing for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. are you ready to take your then you need xfinity xfi.? a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices,

provides the most wifi coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. i have, on numerous occasions, noted our intelligence findings that russians attempted to interfere in our elections. unlike previous administrations, my administration has, and will continue to move aggressively to

repeal any efforts and repel, we will stop it, we will repel it, any efforts to interfere in our elections. >> repeal and repel. i like that. after two years of muddying the waters on russian meddling, president trump claims he's blamed russia many, many times. it echoes talking points that the white house distributed today that msnbc news obtained saying -- >> they give four examples of how strong he's been on this point. here's the first -- >> here's the full quote. the rest of what he said. as far as hacking, i think it was russia. but i think we all get hacked by other countries.

the second example, on july 6th, 2017, the president said, "i think it was russia. the full quote of that statement on that day, here it is. "i think it was russia. i think it could have been other people and other countries. it could have been a lot of people that interfered." the third attempt sadly goes much the same. here it is. november 11, 2017, the president said i'm with our agencies, but the full quote tells a different story. "i believe that putin feels he and russia did not meddle in the election. as to whether i believe it or not, i'm with the agencies. yt and march of 201, the president says there was meddling certainly, and probably there was meddling from other countries and other individuals, and i think you have to be really watching very closely." joining me and jonathan at the table, elise jordan. there were a lot of talking points in her career, former aide in the white house and state department. eugene robinston and rick

stangle. so a thing with talking points, when you're pointing report toers a statement you made to bolster a point, you should assume they have google and will find the rest of it. >> and when you're reading from the talking points, you don't read them like they're a hostage statement. [ laughter ] >> but he's done that before. this reminded me of the hostage statement he read after charlottesville. >> yeah, he can never put the jeannie back into the bottle. >> because he doesn't want the genie in the bottle. >> it's so obvious because he's not authentic at all. that's what propelled his political rise. you can tell when he's reading from a teleprompter and a prepared statement. >> and he does it poorly because he doesn't believe the walkback. >> it's so funny.

even if it's a lie and he's into it, he can sell it. but if the lie is cleaning up a mess, he can't sell it. the trigger isn't that he's been sent out to lie, because that's clearly what happened. that doesn't get to him. >> no professional person in the white house, and that is a statement -- >> we'll debate that. >> there's nobody else who would have thought of that except for donald trump, and nobody else except donald trump that thought they would believe it. >> he did issue a hostage-type apology or correction afterwards, and in both of those cases he went back to his original position. within days. >> exactly. >> put up a clock. [ overlapping speakers ] >> on a political betting website, so how soon does he do

it within a day, two days? [ overlapping speakers ] >> he threw in a sort of low qualifier at the end of his walkback. >> a qualifier is to say i think it's russia. that is not a statement. that's a conditional statement. it is russia is the statement. that is what the intelligence authorities have said. it is russia. they don't say i think it's russia. it's russia. >> what's stunning is to put out -- what they did today seems like the real scandal. what he did yesterday was just trump and his true self revealed. you gave an opportunity on the world stage to rebuke vladamir putin. not only did he take that opportunity and plunge it down the toilet, he took the opportunity to wrap both arms and legs around vladamir putin and squeeze him tight. what they did today wreaked of weakness. for this guy -- yesterday's front pages, this morning, yesterday's event got him front

pages about treason. i think that's on brand for donald trump. but today, this was the thing he hates most. this was an apology. this was a rebuke of his own performance. this was an admission of guilt and of it being wrong. this was reading a statement that someone else wrote for him. i hope it wasn't bill shine. but today felt like a fall even from the treasonous actions yesterday. >> it did. and set the context. just four days ago we got this indictment from robert mueller, which lays out incredibly specific detail with like names and dates and nicknames. i mean -- >> deep throats. >> and how they did it. i've never seen anything quite that specific. you didn't expect that. yet we now know in pain staking detail, not only they did it but how they did it, who did it, how they did it.

and so to still take the position that he obviously still deeply believes, it's really weird. >> and it doesn't work, because as you were saying, his brand is i punch back twice as hard as i'm punched. he took a punch today and he didn't punch back. that's why it didn't work for him. >> he weakly read for something prepared by somebody else. it may have been his idea to say i got "would" mixed up with wouldn't," but the argument made on behalf of the security team, you don't want me to walk out of the room because you don't know how much bad stuff i stop from happening today. you have no idea what i see and prevent. that was an argument made to me. that was an argument that i think people that cover the pentagon and state department and cia hear all the time. here is the problem with that argument today. they're there to protect the

country from trump, but they failed miserably and publicly yesterday. >> and he's just trying to protect himself. the problem is, there's no restraining him, no matter how much you tell him. in fact, because he's a toddler basically, he revolts from that and says i don't want to even pay attention to all those things you told me in the sitroom, i'm going to say something on my own. and they can't say i'm taking one for the people because he's doing something different. >> is frank still with us? frank, let me ask you how law enforcement officials process that question. i've heard it largely from political appointees in the national security establishment. the argument is we're there to protect the country from donald trump's impulsive actions. do they view yesterday as even the best and most loyal servants of the constitution and of american ideals and goals and national security interests will be rolled by this president if

he is compromised by vladamir putin? >> this is the damage going on beneath the surface is that he's wearing down and eroding effectiveness. so if you're trying to recruit and intelligence official from another country to come over to your side and traditionally that's been based on a prem thas t -- premise -- we have a constitution that we abide by, we have justice, and now you realize the president of your country is joined at the hip with the guy who heads that country, the intelligence officer you're trying to recruit. that intelligence officer is going, if i give you information, if i'm a double agent, is your president going to cough that up to putin? what is it that's better about your place than my place? when you try to work with our allies and trying to get them to share sensitive, critical intelligence with you and they ask you, is this going to the white house, is this going to

end up in the oval office? because if it is, we're not giving it to you. that's the problem. >> we just got this picture in. this is the president and his remarks with something written on them in a sharpie that says there was no collusion. it's not spelled right. but someone added in, there was no collusion, like he might not forget to say that. >> the block letter sharpie does look familiar. this is his -- you were thinking he wouldn't need the reminder. this is something he tweets nearly every morning. he made a point of saying yesterday in finland that there was no collusion. he again declared the whole thing a witch hunt and took the opportunity standing a few feet away from vladamir putin to attack the mueller investigation, to attack the intelligence agencies in the united states. that does not change whether he writes no collusion on that paper or not. it's just been part of the brand

and we have seen polling to suggest that it's been somewhat effective to bring down the levels of approval of the special counsel investigation. that's what this is. this is not about facts but branding. that's what trump does. >> it also knocks down the idea that he woke up and was concerned about the distance between himself and his national security team. i don't know if any of them will resign. but he didn't give them any reason not to. >> he seems as if he's most concerned about cleaning up the damage of what he saw by his favorite news sources and the criticism from his base. the irony of this is, hisself proclaimed goal of making relations warmer with russia, he did anything but by making everyone so skeptical because of his just reckless performance. and the recklessness that he displayed on the international stage, that even someone like myself, who i think that it's better to have relations than to not, i can't support behaving

like a recking ball and going in against your country and doubting your own countrymen and women on the international stain. >> i totally agree. what is it we saw yesterday that shouldn't be called collusion? mueller investigation at a bare minimum, between trump and putin. oh, excellent offer from president putin. i think it's very interesting. let's prosecute the american intelligence community. >> because he does it in plain sight that no one is seeing it. there is a national security crisis going on now, because you have the entire mechanism of the intelligence service who doesn't -- they do not know whether they can trust their own president of the united states. tens of thousands of people who are working for the american pub hick and for our security don't

know whether they can trust the fellow at the top of the food chain. are people going to tell us stuff? >> and in countries where they're a little more ambivalent about us. maybe sharing it with someone who will keep their secrets. i'm told by former intelligence officials that's the real fear, the real servicemen and women will have to do that. but it's the allies that share things at grave danger to their own lives. why would they? >> and as you know, i've been in many intelligence briefings, you hear so much from our allies in the intelligence briefings. >> that is what i heard today from a former defense official who was saying well, the good thing is, he doesn't really pay attention to the briefings. he doesn't pay attention to the substance. so when he's in a one on one with putin, what does he have to share? we have seen where he's trying to -- what he's trying to show out, as he was when he was

standing side by side with putin, he was showing out, and we saw last time when the russian ambassador was in the oval office, he compromised abisraeli source of intelligence in syria. when we come back, special counsel robert mueller seeking immunity for witnesses in the case against paul manafort. that's next. and check out the all-new ecosport. protect those who matter most, and make the summer go right with ford, america's best-selling brand. now during the ford summer sales event, get 0% financing for 60 months on a huge selection of suv's. and for the first time ever get 0% financing for 60 months plus $1,000 ford bonus cash on the 2018 ecosport. these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care.

expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com and now for the rings. (♪)

i'm a four-year-old ring bearer with a bad habit of swallowing stuff. still won't eat my broccoli, though. and if you don't have the right overage, you could be paying for that pricey love band yourself. so get an allstate agent, and be better protected from mayhem. like me. can a ring bearer get a snack around here? and i am a senior public safety my namspecialist for pg&e. my job is to help educate our first responders on how to deal with natural gas and electric emergencies.

everyday when we go to work we want everyone to work safely and come home safely. i live right here in auburn, i absolutely love this community. once i moved here i didn't want to live anywhere else. i love that people in this community are willing to come together to make a difference for other people's lives. together, we're building a better california. with the world caught up in president trump's meeting with vladamir putin, back at home rob is moving the ball forward in the russia investigation. an interesting development this afternoon in the paul manafort case. the special counsel's office notified a federal judge in virginia that they will seek immunity for up to five people who may testify against paul manafort in his trial. joiq joining us now are my guests.

harry, take us through the potential significance of today's news about the manafort trial.here, nicolle. these are five people who we don't -- who have not appeared in the investigation to date. nevertheless, they have some kind of criminal liability. manafort has to know who they are. they need to apply to the judge to get immunity, so-called use immunity, meaning their testimony would not be used against them. that's a sort of narrow kind of immunity. but you can see as always mueller has really done his homework. he's preparing a broad case against manafort that probably encompasses many different kinds of transactions, the full details of which we don't know. but these five people could help testify about. importantly, he won't identify who they are, because it would prejudice them, and he said they

may not be called. but he needs the judge to give the approval for the immunity in the event he wants to use them. and it really shakes up manafort to see such a broad net being cast. it's unusual to see this much use immunity. >> harry, let me follow up with something from nbc's reporting, they write, mueller did not name the witnesses but said they've not been identified publicly with the case. he cited the risk of "undue harassment or reputational harm if their identities are disclosed." are they worried about harassment from the president's tweets and others? >> that and more. it's not a good entree to washington cocktail parties to be a close pal of paul manafort.

i think they would get roughed up and brought into the vortex of this investigation. i see the point the republican attack dog machine will come after them specifically, but it's broader than that. you don't want them to be involved and implicated unless they have to be. >> let me put this to you, frank, in the wake of the pete strzok hearing last week and the wake of president trump's attacks on anyone who takes a deal in the mueller probe, george papadopoulos and others, i wonder what you make of what we saw today from the special counsel. >> so it's going to get harder and harder for this white house to distance themselves and be in denial and dismiss what's going on at the special counsel's office. just to reiterate what's been said, there are five people that

we haven't heard of yet that say, you know what? i think i'm criminally exposed. and the government says, you know what? you are. and now a judge will have to weigh in on that and they're all going to talk about paul manafort. so let's engage in a little bit of speculation about who these people might be that we haven't heard of yet. are they russian organized crime or ukrainian organized crime figures? are they bankers who looked the other day while the russian money was being laundered into manafort's accounts? who are these people? as they come forward, the president is going to sit there and go, i can't keep denying that people around me weren't compromised. >> and are they members of the campaign? >> exactly. >> let me put this last question to both of you. we were reminded on friday of the sort of this is how he rolls conversation about robert

mueller, that when he wants to pull back the curtain, he's got the goods. i'm thinking of the indictment about the key stroke evidence, about what you're both saying that here are five more people we never heard of. i had never heard of george papadopoulos before i learned he pled guilty and before we learned how instrumental he was at starting that counterintelligence investigation with his enter actions. can you both speak to the broader point that frank is making about bob mueller's investigation in all that we don't know and all the president doesn't know, starting with you, harry. >> sure. so as many have said, you see some of the contours, but mueller knows all of this stuff. in friday's indictment, we have an unnamed person in paragraph 44. we know that's roger stone. and today's indictment, which we'll talk about, not from

mueller, but we have americans identified. he is sending a message that he knows who they are and he's giving them a chance perhaps to cooperate. as always, though, he's extremely methodical and doesn't come out and say anything until he's got it all together and stitched up. that doesn't mean he reveals everything in the public filing. but it does mean that people on the other side know that he knows who they are. >> frank, rod rosenstein was at the white house -- oh, we lost frank. harry, rod rosenstein was at the white house today. rod rosenstein knows what bob mueller is up to, and i detected a subtle shift in posture from rosenstein and his deputy not in the substance of what they're doing but in the presentation of what they did on friday. they seemed to make clear that -- they seem stronger, if you will, of their defense of the special counsel's work and the importance of it. >> don't you think, those whole

last couple of paragraphs from rosenstein, sort of flexing muscles and making a plea to patriotism, which is an implicit charge of nonpatriotism on the part of trump and company. definitely coming out of the box with more confidence, and it's tea leaf reading, but certainly today's indictment would bear out -- or yesterday that one of the things he may be thinking of, there's a lot to come here now, and it's time for the department to go on the offensive in court and in the public relations campaign against the defamation of the fbi. >> i take it the 30,000 feet about paul manafort can connect all the dots, between what we saw yesterday. paul manafort's client, victor yanokovic, is sitting in moscow now.

he now works for vladamir putin. why was he disposed by the ukrainian people? because he opposed the ukrainian people that wanted to get closer to the european union are foe -- [ overlapping speakers ] in alignment to the west. that is the contours of this very strange big thing. >> and the first time an american president has had his finger on the side of putin and yanokovic. when we come back, the arrest of a suspected russian spy working in the u.s. he rubbed should wers members ws of congress and questioned the president. is this as close as it gets to collusion? (vo) what if this didn't

have to happen? i didn't see it. (vo) what if we could go back? what if our car... could stop itself? in iihs front-end crash prevention testing, nobody beats the subaru impreza. not toyota. not honda. not ford. the subaru impreza. more than a car, it's a subaru.

if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable

after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. fresh off donald trump's public display of affection for vladimir putin, the justice department may have wanted the last word.

they just indicted a young woman believed to be on working on behalf of the russian government. the woman charged today with conspiracy and acting as a foreign agent. "the daily beast" explains why this may be significant writing it is the first time the justice department has explicitly claimed that a russian spy working to influence the 2016 campaign had cldeliberate assistance from a u.s. citizen. harry, take us through the significance of this. >> and it is pretty huge. so we've had to date different allegations that involved some named foreigners and not clear who on state side. this is -- you say it is close to collusion. collusion is a misused term. but whatever it is, this is it. you are talking about a woman, personal assistant to a high level russian government

official, aleksandr torshin, who makes an alliance with a u.s. citizen, political operative named paul erickson, specifically designed to penetrate the u.s. government decision making apparatus. we've gone from if friday was a kind of a tom clancy novel, this is an episode of the americans in real life. she has a couple years where she consorts with all kinds of high ranking political officials, congressmen, scott walker and others. and through interestingly the nra. she is herself a big -- she seems like a center democratic fo democraticfold for a gun lovers magazine. but it is flat out connection between the russian government, not some unnamed russians, and u.s. operatives with connections to the trump campaign. it just misses that last piece that mueller is mining we expect

between those people, paul erickson and the like, and the actual trump campaign. >> and she got real close to the actual trump campaign and donald trump himself. let's watch. >> and trump jr. >> do you want to continue the politics of sanctions that are damaging both economies? >> i know putin. and we get along with putin. putin has no respect for president obama. big problem. big problem. i think that we would get along with a lot of countries thoo we don't get along with today and we'll be a lot richer for it. >> so if you needed anymore reason to not believe as people attempt a cleanup, that was the president answering a question from the russian spy indicted today and charged with being a foreign agent, who i don't know if he coincidentally called on her. but the idea that donald trump

had anything other than putin's world view or putin's explanation for what happened during the election in mind is ridiculous. >> up until that statement today, he had been ideologically consistent on this issue of how you views putin and russia. and it flies in the face of reality. we have seen it time and time again. and i tried to prompt him to say once and for all. because every time he talks about collusion and election interference, he always hedges his bets. and this is a moment where he could have said he did it. or at least chosen to say don't do it again. like 2018 going forward. because that is the other piece of this is how little the trurd has done to safe guard future elections from further interference. and he chose not do that too. he didn't touch it. instead he grabbed for the bright shiny object that distracts. whether the hillary clinton e-mail server or on the dnc hack or the pakistani technician he

mentioned or even this new putin idea with the investigator swap which of course would help undermine the mueller probe. >> i think we're asking the wrong question. i think this idea that he was supposed to push back, i read today in the "washington post" they gave him 100 pages. therein lies your problem. so maybe give him two. give him pictures. but are asking the wrong question? maybe they talked about how can you help me in the midterm. and listen, i understand and i accept sort of the incrementalism of how we get from where we thought we were to where we actually are. but i think this is the wrong question. why didn't he push back. he didn't push back because it is more likely that he asked for more help. >> and also more likely that he revealed some state secrets to try to impress vladimir putin too. i think that we should know what went down in that meeting. i really think that the translator of the meeting should testify behind closed doors to the senate foreign relations committee. i think that the american public

should have a congressional safe guard on his reckless behavior. >> and behind closed doors in a classified setting to hear from the translator and to see those notes. which i guess would be presidential documents. >> and i want to go back to what you said. if this is a national security crisis, why don't we have a 9/11 style commission looking at august the presideall the president's contacts with russia? why aren't we looking at how american foreign policy is crafted? >> i would hope there is people in the intelligence committee having these conversations with each other now because they are very scared. i mean i don't think that trump was saying that to putin how can i -- how can you help me in the midterms 37. >> you don't know that. >> but by not saying anything,3 >> you don't know that. >> but by not saying anythin7. >> you don't know that. >> but by not saying anythin.

>> you don't know that. >> but by not saying anything, he said whatever you're doing, go ahead. >> all right. we'll be right back. the line between work and life hasn't just blurred. it's gone. that's why you need someone behind you. not just a card. an entire support system. whether visiting the airport lounge to catch up on what's really important. or even using those hard-earned points to squeeze in a little family time. no one has your back like american express. so no matter where you're going... we're right there with you. the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. don't live life without it.

♪ it's so hard to believe ♪ but it's all coming back me. ♪ baby, baby, baby. all you can eat is back, baby. applebee's.

my thanks to some of my post favorite friends. and what you did yesterday probably gave rise to the as per races of dozens and dozens of young people. thank you that does it for us. m tch"mtp daily" starts right n with katy tur in for chuck. >> you can send jonathan over me, i want to give him a high five. >> he's coming. >> good. thank you. and if it is tuesday, could the cleanup get any messier? tonight the walk backe. >> russians attempted to interfere in our elections. >> the president reverses course after facing a world of criticism after his putin summit. >> i just wanted to clear up, i have the strongest respect for our