>> he was walking back what he did, and you know, kind of apologizing but kind of not. >> i'm just glad he clarified it. i can't read his intentions or what he meant to say at the time. >> if he wanted to make those comments he should have had the strength to make them in front of vladimir putin. >> and into the light. soccer team out of the hospital, giving thanks and speaking about the ordeal, telling the compelling story of what it was like as they waited to be rescued. how they licked water from the walls, how they had no watch and no concept of the time. they weren't sure how many days before those two british divers discovered them. and triggering what was an ambitious and dramatic three-day rescue mission. and isn't it nice to have a nice story to report. i'm chris jansing.

we're expecting to hear from president trump this hour at the cabinet meeting after a morning spent embracing vladimir putin. in a tweet storm, touting his relationship with the russian president, hinting at cooperation between the two countries on undisclosed topics, first discussed in that closed door trump/putin helsinki meeting. two key questions. will the president try again to clear up his first attempt at a do-over. >> i accept our intelligence community's conclusion that russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place. could be other people also. a lot of people out there. >> and will he be compelled to walk back any of the other stunning comments he made in helsinki on monday. joining me now msnbc kristen welker, political analyst ashley parker. white house reporter at "the washington post," msnbc

political analyst elise jordan. and msnbc national security analyst clint watts, a former fbi special agent and author the messing with the enemy. good to see all of you here. chris what do we know so far? >> the president really trying to shift the focus to the economy, his daughter and top adviser is there. she is talking about a new work force initiative and apparently the president signaling he's going to make a big announcement about that. he also says he's going to be inviting the leaders of the eu to the white house for a meeting, talking about trade, saying there's a a possibility he may be able to strike a trade deal. really trying to shift the focus here, but as you point out, the question today remains, was the president sincere in that walkback yesterday, particularly after he had this series of very

defiant and fiery tweets this morning which seemed to be a walk back of his walk back. by the way, hisbackba walk back addressed one point. word would versus wouldn't. he seemed to trust vladimir putin's assessment over his own intelligence community. and the tone of the press conference. so those are the questions that linger over this president as this cabinet meeting continues to get under way as we continue to monitor it. will he answer questions. that remains to be seen. we'll also have a press briefing with sarah huckabee sanders. >> yeah. i'm looking at the notes. you and i have been in those kinds of situations in the fast typing on your phone, trying to get information out so it's not always exact, but from what i'm seeing, he did try to tout what he believes was a successful trip, calling it an incredible

trip where they made incredible progress and metings with nato were a tremendous success. let me start with you because you have a front page story the "washington post" today taking this a step further. you talk about what was going on to get the president to go out there and say would versus wouldn't. you can just imagine the meetings that went on to make that change to try to play cleanup. take us behind the scenes. what happened? >> sure. so part of it was organic. it started on the air force one flight home. president was watching cable news and the coverage was uniformly negative. and he was -- he sort of -- he believed and according to people i talked to, he still believes that the summit went great and everyone is getting it wrong. but he also recognized he didn't like the negative coverage. and he sort of wanted to stop the negative coverage. that said, there was also a real push from a number of top people

on his team for him to go out and read that statement. p and we heard that was coming from everyone from the vice president, from the second of state, from chief of staff john kelly, who, and i should say the white house has denied this but a number of people have told us john kelly was incredibly frustrated calling lawmakers on capitol hill and urging them to speak their minds to the president, the idea being that if he heard from trusted people like, say, newt gingrich who tweeted about this -- >> very negatively, by the way. and we heard that was one of the things that really got the president's attention, that newt gingrich, who has been such a staunch supporter would write an incredibly critical tweet after that. >> that's right. we heard the same thing. he was rattled by that tweet. and that was sort of what helped h him understand. he went out and corrected it. after that very negative tweet in newt gingrich, who you pointed out is always a staunch

ally, he tweeted the next day saying the president has clarified. all is fine and well and trained his fire on -- >> you had this great reporting too. you have mike pence, pompeo, as well. who are instrumental in getting him to read the same. we saw in close justify photographs taken he wrote some things in the margins and crossed other things out. there's the picture of it. adding there was no collusion. that's in the president's -- he always writes in that black magic marker. i was thinking to myself. what are they thinking, if they felt like they accomplished something, he goes on this tweet storm, like seven tweets in an hour and a half. >> that's right. as you point out, it comes after his vice president, secretary of state, in a private conversation with him, said, look, you need to clarify. you need to come out and say something publicly. you need to be very definitive

in the kmincomments. then the fact that the president yesterday added that caveat, it's russia, but it could also be other people. and then today, this very defiant tweet storm. it's reminding a lot of people of the charlottesville controversy when he came out and said there are good people on both sides of this issue. this both sidesism that he sort of gets himself into trouble with. you'll recall how that unfolded. it went back and forth and created frankly a lot of confusion about what the bottom line is and what his bottom line message is. i think the president runs the risk of having 9 same exact thing happen in this instance in which he's muddling his attempt to clean up the controversy. still saying it's no the good enough. >> it's important for him to be anyone to say, for the president to say here's what i have

accomplish d . they could be helpful with north korea. i was just handed this and i'll get your reaction. u.s. secretary of state pompeo says the u.s. will receive the remains of american soldiers in north korea in coming weeks. >> that's great. i'm glad that those remains -- long overdue, they are back on american soil where they belong. i would prefer that we're making more progress towards denuclear identifying north korea. baby steps. north korea doesn't seem to be on the same page as donald trump. with regards to actually dismantling their nuclear program. >> he tweeted about these important subject the that were talked about by the way, in a two-hour meeting we have no idea of what actually went on in there. it comes after the russian ministry mentioned implementing agreements between the two. i mean clint, how difficult is it, if you're in his cabinet, if you're part of the national

security team, part of intelligence, you a, don't know what happened in that meeting, and you have russia issuing a statement about agreements that were made that you may know absolutely nothing about. >> our source of information on a summit that we entered into is russian state media basically. waiting for the russians to tell us what happened with our own president. >> remember, they're the ones that told us about the summit itself. we got the pictures in the oval office from the russians. they have taken the lead. >> we are looking at a propaganda outfit to tell us some version of what may have occurred. as an intelligence analyst, working on counter intelligence, what are you to think when you have a two-hour block of time where the president goes in with a foreign leader and doesn't bring uch probably hacking. doesn't bring up election interference and comes right back out and says i actually believe vladimir putin and i don't believe my own intelligence agencies. then the next day says, oh, i messed up one of the words. >> but it could also be other people. >> could be other people.

he points to no other evidence of this. intelligence community has no other evidence of this. and at this point, it's very well documented, and we have nato allies. in many cases it's believed mostly nato allies provided the information that we use to build these indictments, to go after russian hackers and just the week before, he is discrediting them. saying nato maybe doesn't need to be around. even today talking about maybe we wouldn't defend certain nato allies. >> i don't know how any other interpretation of this could come about other than he will never get in front of vladimir putin, or say anything negative about vladimir putin. every other world leader at some point he's been negative and sometimes positive but not going against vladimir putin at any time. i have no idea what that summit was ultimately about for americans. i don't know what we achieved or what was the success. >> and you heard some sound from some of the republicans trying to walk this line. they'll say we support u.s. intelligence, but they won't

explicitly criticize the president. most of them, and some of them seem to be breathing a little sigh of relief over the one-word clarification. but, one republican congressman, congressman costello did have this to say. take a listen. >> do you buy the president's explanation for what happened? >> i don't. but i think at this point, it doesn't matter whether people buy it or not. i don't think the international community is going to buy it. i think the damage was done at the time he said it and the 24 ensuing hours after that fact. >> do other members of congress understand what their constitutional mandate is to do? >> i wonder. you see the -- so many congress men and women who seem to not understand their job is to challenge the executive not just be deferential. i saw an interesting survey from a kentucky television station.

they surveyed their viewers. 80% did not debris agree on the back. this is in a very red state with a lot of trump support, and this summit just landed with such a thud, with some of donald trump's strongest supporters. and i think we're going to see the intensity of the rejection of what he did play out as republicans struggle to deal with the aftermath. >> in some ways it's hard to keep up with what to reject. ashley, your paper has done an incredible job from day one of keeping track of the misstatements and outright lies by this president. first noted some of the comments he chose not to clarify. we've put them together. let's play that. >> i think that the united states has been foolish. i think we've all been foolish. i think that the probe is a disaster for your country. i think it's kept us apart. kept us separated.

i will tell you that president putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. he offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators with respect to the 12 people. i think that's an incredible offer. >> you could go through each and every one of those but most viewers understand what's going on. does the white house believe at this point, ashley, that by doing that, clarification, by changing a word, and by trying obviously from what little we know, of that meeting, right now, with the cabinet, when he's talking about how great everything was and how successful it was, that that without any real pressure from republicans in congress, they can just move on as they have in the past? >> well, there's two challenges. the first is anyone who knows this president says you can't get him to say something that's not his words. so there's always going to be a limit to that clarification, and in this case, it was a

willingness to tweak one word. so called double negative. secondly, people i talked to have said, look, this isn't going to stop. all of the critics, people criticizing him at first are still going to keep criticizing him, but what he needed to do was reassures base or at least give republican members of congress cover to say look, this president understanding our world view. he's in line with us on putin, in line with us on believing the conclusions of the national -- his own national security community. his own intelligence community. and they think that by that admittedly quite low bar, they may have accomplished that yesterday. although, again, i would point out, if he then backtracks as his tweets seem to point to, we could be back where we were 24 hours ago. >> ashley parker, great conversation. thanks to all of you. >> thanks, chris. >> over the next 24 hours, by the way, nbc news has three big exclusives from the security forum tonight on msnbc.

lester holt will interview anybody director christopher wray. tomorrow andrea mitchell has the big exclusive with the director of national intelligence dan coats. you're not going to want to miss any of that. stay with us this hour because we are still waiting for the press pool to come out of that cabinet meeting to see if the president took any questions. coming up, the room where it happened. senate democrats are calling for a hearing with the american interpreter inside the trump-putin meeting. the top democrat joins me next on "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. who would have guessed? an energy company helping cars emit less. making cars lighter, it's a good place to start, advanced oils for those hard-working parts. fuels that go further so drivers pump less. improving efficiency is what we do best.

energy lives here.

today is the day we have all been waiting for. the 12 thai boys rescued from a flooded cave made their first public appearance today after being released from the hospital. nbc's janis mackey frayer has been following the story from the very beginning and has the latest. >> reporter: in high spirits, in good health, the thai soccer team that captivated the world smiling for cameras, and revealing details of the ten days they were missing, with no concept of time and nothing to eat. they say they licked the cave's walls to drink water, their minds tired, thinking only of food. >> how many of you? 15? brilliant.

>> reporter: then out of the darkness, two british divers found them. "i was surprised that he was a foreigner, i didn't know what to say," he says. "i said hello, he said hello back. it was a miracle." and across town where the boys live, families are getting ready for a homecoming like no other. they made a commitment, they will go to the monastery and be ordained as monks. they'll shave their heads and stay there for at least a week, as an offering of gratitude for making it out safely. janis mackey frayer, nbc news, chiang rai, thailand. >> amazing story. good to have some good news. meantime, right now there's this new push that's on to hear from the u.s. translator who was the only other american in the room during president trump's meeting with vladimir putin monday in helsinki. testimony like that would be unprecedented.

here she is, you see her, marina gross, at the table in the expanded meeting on monday. she's experienced. she was also at the tillerson/lavrov meeting in moscow last year. democrats have sent a letter to president trump asking for specific details about what was discussed in that two-hour meeting. senator bob menendez, top democrat on the senate foreign relations committee, signed that letter. he joins me now. i so appreciate you taking the time. let's start with the obvious. one, do you believe you have the power to subpoena her, and what do you want to know from marina gross? >> we definitely -- i believe the committee has the power to do it. whether we can get our republican colleagues to join us is a question. but we want to have a real independent sense of what transpired for well over two hours between president trump and president putin, because the performance in public that took place, which i believe was shameful and a day of infamy in

terms of our foreign policy -- >> a day of infamy? >> yes. here we had an american president who was an supplicant who is the russian president who is a thug, who continues to try to undermine our democratic processes and our elections. so for me to have a president who on foreign soil undermines the credibility of our fbi, of our intelligence bureaus, our department of justice, is beyond belief. and so we need to know what happened there, because there are critical issues. already the russian military sources and russian information is putting out that they're ready to execute on security agreements. we don't know what those are or what was agreed to. >> international security agreements reached between president trump and president putin. are you concerned that president trump made some deals in that meeting that not only do you know nothing about but his

foreign policy team knows nothing about, his national security team knows nothing about? >> absolutely. absolutely. same thing as he did with kim jong-un, which is why we've been pressing, and i'm glad to see the secretary of state as a result of our continuous pressure will be before the senate foreign relations committee next wednesday afternoon. we've been doing this since north korea. now with what happened in helsinki, the russian dynamic is critically important. i don't know whether he agreed to begin to lift sanctions on russia that congress passed -- the senate passed 98-2, the congress passed overwhelmingly. i don't know whether he agreed not to have nato military exercises because russia considers it an irritant. i don't know whether he agreed to give up on crimea, as we have taken the position never to recognize the annexation of crimea. on that and so much more, we just simply have no idea. so you have to really wonder, after two hours, what type of commitments were made, if any.

and that's what we need to know. we will only truly know if the interpreter comes before the committee, either in an open or classified session. and secondly, with whatever secretary pompeo knows, but of course he wasn't there for the two hours. >> let me ask you about something former cia director john brennan said. he said he thinks it's likely that vladimir putin recorded monday's meeting with president donald trump. do you think that the russians likely made a recording? could they try to use it in some way against us? >> well, listen. putin is kgb. that's how he grew up in the system. that's how he rose to power. that's still how he thinks. so a recording of a foreign official, particularly the president of the united states, i think is a very likely possibility. and so, you know, it's a real concern. it's like putin deviated and didn't really answer the question as to whether or not they have kompromat,

compromising information on the president. but you have to wonder. and i don't know what the special counsel will ultimately reveal in terms of whether there was any collusion in the 2016 election. but from what i saw on the stage at helsinki, there was collusion that day. and that is a real concern for the national interests of the united states. >> sir, i have to get your reaction, the white house press pool just came out of that cabinet meeting the president is having at the white house. he says, "no president has been as tough as i've been on russia, president putin knows it better than anyone, he knows it better than the media." and he was asked, "is russia still targeting the u.s.," and he said, "no." so the president says he does not believe that russia is still targeting the u.s. your reaction. >> this is why i believe that there is some type of compromising set of circumstances here. every one of our intelligence agencies, those who are led by

appointees of president trump, have said that not only did russia engage actively in trying to undermine the elections of 2016 against secretary clinton and for now-president trump, but that they are continuing to do so. the director of national intelligence, dan coats, just said that in fact there are blinking red lights, and he's talking about russian lights in terms of being engaged in these elections that we're 111 days away from. it is appalling that the president cannot seem to stand up to vladimir putin. and that really means there's got to be something more that we don't see. it would even be in his political interests to stand up to him, not only the national interests and security of the united states, yet he fails to do so. >> senator menendez, we appreciate so much your time. thanks so much for being on the program. we want to go back to the white house. kristen welker is standing by. kristen, it looks like he took a

few questions from the pool before he said "thank you, goodbye." he did take a few questions. let's recap what was said moments ago during this cabinet meeting. he was asked if russia is still targeting the united states. the president said no. he was then asked another question related to this topic, not exactly clear what that question is, but he used it as a chance to reiterate one of his talking points on russia. he said "no president has been as tough as i've been on russia, i think president putin knows that better than anyone, better than the media." i can tell you when i've spoken to republicans, chris, who are very disappointed in what they saw in helsinki from this president, they go back to that point, they say, look at the policies, this president has been tough on russia, he's enacted sanctions, he's expelled diplomats, and that's part of the justification for not breaking with him completely after he appeared to side with putin over his own intelligence community during the joint press conference. all of this comes against the

backdrop of the president yesterday trying to clarify and clean up his remarks amid really an avalanche of criticism from democrats and republicans, and some of those within his own administration, the vice president, the secretary of state, urging him to come out and make comments. >> the point of that makeup, that clarification, was to say unequivocally that he believed u.s. intelligence, and at least for part one, he was trying to say he believed that russia was responsible. he missed a "not" in there or an apostrophe "t." does he understand that if he says russia is still targeting the u.s., "no" he says in answer to that question, that that is not agreeing with the u.s. intelligence assessment? >> reporter: it's a really important point. as you stated, russia continues to target the united states, there needs to be a robust effort to make sure this doesn't happen again in 2018, to make

sure that the electoral process is protected from this type of activity. so that undoubtedly is going to be at the forefront here when we hear from press secretary sarah sanders later today. he gave a caveat yesterday, when he was supposed to be very clear, when he was supposed to come out and say i agree with my intelligence community that russia is to blame, he added that caveat, that he has done so many times in the past, which is to say "there could also be someone else." >> i'm going to interrupt you because we're going to roll that tape, kristen, it just came in. >> i do think so. thank you all very much. appreciate it. >> reporter: is russia still targeting the u.s.? >> let's go, make your way out. let's go. press, let's go. >> thank you very much,

everybody. >> reporter: can you just clarify? >> we're doing very well. we're doing very well. probably as well as anybody has ever done with russia. and there's been no president ever as tough as i have been on russia. all you have to do is look at the numbers, look at what we've done, look at sanctions, look at ambassadors not there. look, unfortunately, at what happened in syria recently. and i think president putin knows that better than anybody. certainly a lot better than the media. he understands it. and he's not happy about it. and he shouldn't be happy about it, because there's never been a president as tough on russia as i have been. okay. thank you very much. >> so kristen welter, just to reiterate, the question, "is russia still targeting the u.s.," something all of his intelligence agencies have answered in the affirmative, that the committees, the relevant committees have answered in the affirmative, and he said "no."

and it strikes me, as i'm looking at that tape, i'm not sure if you can see it, you know what a cabinet meeting looks like, that the people in that room as he was answering that question are the very same people who you reported were the ones who got him to go back yesterday and make this statement clarifying that he supports the intelligence community. they had to sit around that table just minutes ago and listen to him essentially disavow a key finding the intelligence community. >> reporter: you're absolutely right. and i would expect that there are going to be meetings about how they will clarify those comments again. when we hear from sarah sanders, of course we'll hear from the president in the coming days, he says he's going to have a big event, workforce training event, he'll get some more questions about all of this. chris, to your point, the bottom line, the president yet again appearing to break with the findings of his own intelligence community. part of what some critics

believe is going on is that the president wants to move on from this topic so significantly because he does feel as though it has cast a shadow over his electoral victory even though the findings are also that it didn't have an impact necessarily on the election. but that for him, this becomes very personal. and that's part of why you see him continually trying to turn the page and frankly sweep this under the rug. but it's going to infuriate undoubtedly those within the intelligence community who already feel as though his comments earlier this week disrespected their findings and were a real break with what we've seen from u.s. presidents in the past, chris. >> kristen welker, thank you so much for that. i want to bring in michael mcfaul, the former u.s. ambassador to russia, now an msnbc international affairs analyst. here again we find ourselves in a situation where the president, who just tried to do cleanup on trusting the u.s. intelligence community, says that, no, he

does not think russia is still targeting the u.s. help us make some sense of this. >> i can't. i'm sorry. i can't make sense of this. >> i mean -- >> honestly, i've never seen -- >> the director of national intelligence, just last week, said this is a blinking red light. >> right. >> what we're facing right now. a blinking red light. >> correct. >> what do you do if you're dan coats? what do you do, if you're the people in that room sitting around that table, who just sat him down yesterday and said you have to go back out there for the good of the country, for the good of the world, and clarify your comments that you support your own intelligence agencies. >> well, number one, i deeply respect dan coats for putting out a statement when the president was in helsinki where i was just last night with nbc. that was a brave statement to put on the record, to push back on the president of the united

states. and i think some other senior administration officials need to start thinking about doing the same. this is becoming a joke. it is becoming absurd. it makes our president looks weak. it makes our country look weak. and it's time for the rest of the administration to push back more forcefully. >> i'm reading now, the statements that dan coats made in washington, d.c. on friday, he was speaking at the hudson institute, among other things, michael, he said, "the warning signs are there, the system is blinking, it is why i believe we are at a critical point. today the digital infrastructure that serves this country is literally under attack." is there anyone who deals with this on a day-to-day basis who doesn't believe that's true? >> no, everybody believes it's true. and let's underscore, we've done next to nothing in terms of policy responses to those vulnerabilities. so we've been talking about this for years now. i want to underscore, years.

and yet, basic things to protect our electoral systems from future cyber attacks have not been done. paper trails for votes have not been done. that's the most minimal thing to do. let's all say at a minimum, let's have a paper trail for votes cast in the event that there might be another cybersecurity attack in 2018. we haven't done those policy things because the president of the united states refuses to admit the truth about the russian intelligence operation against the united states of america. >> what do you do, if you believe as dan coats does, if you believe as the leaders of the intelligence community, we just had bob menendez on, if you believe that we are at a critical point, what do you do if you don't have the backing of the president of the united states? >> i think you have three options if you're in the trump administration. one is to be a better adviser. and let's be clear, when i hear john bolton, the national

security adviser, say my job is just to implement what the president wants to do, that is incorrect. he is the national security adviser. it is his job to advise the president. and he took an oath to the united states of america, not to president trump tru. so one, you need to do your job better. two, you can speak out publicly, like mr. coats did. or three, you resign. those are your three options. >> this is part of what has been i guess now we're on three days, it's sort of hard to keep track, the way things come at you so fast, but three days of really an intelligence community, our allies, anybody who deals really with the security of this country, a two-hour meeting that we don't know, as we've been talking about, what happened. how do you operate, how do you operate in this environment? and from what you know, and you know a lot of people who are still active in this, if you're the u.s. ambassador to russia,

who was just at that table, how do you deal with this? >> you know, i just think people have to start pushing back publicly. one of the things we know that was discussed in that meeting now, and it's come out in the russian press, is this idea that mueller would send his team over to interrogate the 12 gru military officers that were indicted. but there was a quid pro quo for that. putin floated the idea that he would send his investigators to interrogate alleged criminals, including me personally. >> yes. and can i read something that you wrote about this, because you tweeted about this. and can i say, just to put this in context, the president actually called this quid pro quo an incredible offer. that wasn't behind closed doors, he did that in public. "as i discuss in detail from "cold war to hot peace," which is your book, "that putin now

wants to arrest me takes it to a new level. i expect my government to defend my in public and in private." i'm asking you in honestly, do you have any expectation your government will do that? >> i do. i don't expect president trump to do it. but there is a lot of good people in the trump administration. they know how crazy this is. and i hope they understand that by not responding to these outrageous claims, somehow, some symmetry between an alleged cockamamie money laundering scheme, completely fabricated for political reasons, and the indictment that mr. mueller did last friday, there is no symmetry to that. and they have to push back publicly, because if they don't, it's yet one more victory for vladimir putin. >> ambassador, i don't know if you can stay with us, if you can, please do. otherwise, thank you. but i want to also bring in jennifer palmieri, former white house communications director under president obama and former communications director for hillary clinton's campaign.

jeremy peters, "the new york times" politics reporter. sabrina siddiqui, political reporter for "the guardian." jennifer palmieri, i worked at the white house while you were there, i know you, i see the look on your face, it's a serious one. let's get your reaction about what the president of the united states just said about believing this threat from russia is over. >> even in the alleged walkback that he did yesterday, he has never fully aligned himself with the intelligence of the united states. even when he did his switch yesterday, he still at the end of what he had to say waffled and said, but, you know, it could have been some other countries. and it is -- it's stunning to see, and it's chilling to think, as our friend ambassador mcfaul said, alluded to before. what would have happened in the two hours that those two men were alone together? and the suggestions that vladimir putin put in his head for two solid hours.

imagine -- really pause to imagine that. and he is -- you know, people sort of joke about him going to meet his master and get his marching orders. but i think that's what he did. and you could even see in the press conference afterwards how they had aligned themselves on the fully falsified accusations of hillary clinton and the way they had coordinated on that. this is collusion in real time. and it was shown in the indictment that came out last friday, that the russians spent $90,000 in bitcoin to fund their hack. and with that $90,000, they had succeeded in fully neutering the united states of america as a world force. and now it is -- now russia has emerged as the sole superpower in the globe. >> jeremy, let me circle back to what kristen welker was talking

about from the white house. we were watching this tape of the president being asked the question is russia still targeting us, and he answers no. and around that table are the very same people who got him to go and read that statement yesterday, although some of it was crossed out and some things like "there was no collusion" were added in his black magic marker. but what do they do now? what do they do now when they thought maybe they had maybe a baby step, giving at least the republicans some cover to say the president misspoke, whether or not they believe it, they can say the president misspoke. and now he comes out and again contradicts what the intelligence community has unequivocally said. >> i think that they do what any adviser to president trump has learned all along, since the beginning of his campaign, which is to learn that you are ultimately at the whim of somebody who is utterly impulsive and nonresponsive to your cues, to your direction.

and despite what they may tell him is worthwhile saying, what is consistent with american values, what really is america first, he's going to do what is trump first. and he has this really extraordinary capacity to deny reality, deny what has just been said despite the evidence. you can say, well, wait a second, mr. president, we have the tape right here, and in fact this has happened on multiple cases. there was a time during the campaign when he was caught on tape from the 1980s impersonating a pr person, saying "i represent mr. trump." he flat out said, i believe to savannah guthrie on the "today" show, "that's not my voice." later on, when the "access hollywood" tape came out, he at first apologized for it, realizing this could be a potentially fatal blow to his campaign, later on, he continued

to deny in private that that was him, telling people, well, there's no proof that that was really my voice. so there is this almost compulsion that he has to deny the facts, even as they are staring at him right in the face. >> i just want to go back to michael mcfaul. michael hayden just tweeted, "omg, omg, omg." it's almost like, ambassador, there are no words anymore. >> well, that's how i reacted to your first question to me. there are no words. and i want to underscore another thing, people that don't follow the debates in russia might not understand. this looks like a joke inside russia. you should see the cartoons that are being circulated there. if the trump base thinks that somehow he is restoring respect because of what he said to president putin, it is exactly the opposite inside russia.

>> what he said, you know, again, today, at the top here, is that he thinks that the meetings were a tremendous success, that -- let me go to you, sabrina siddiqui. does he truly believe that all of this, that everyone is talking about, including his own cabinet, including his own senior advisers, that somehow none of that is real, or does he understand that there is a problem and that if he says it was a success, it was a success, it was a success enough times, that people will start believing it? >> well, i think that even if he does understand that there is a problem here, he clearly has shown a lack of seriousness with respect to how to respond. what the president said just now simply isn't true. his intelligence chiefs have testified on capitol hill that moscow is actively trying to interfere in the upcoming 2018

midterm elections. the director of national intelligence, dan coats, was one of those who appeared before lawmakers and said that he expects the russians to build on their operations and proliferate even more fake news and propaganda. earlier this year, the president's nsa director at the time said that he had not been given authority by the president to disrupt russian cyber attacks at the source. so it is clear that this president is not taking this issue seriously. he is not doing anything within his power to deter future russian attacks on u.s. democracy. the question now of course is whether lawmakers on capitol hill, namely republicans who control both chambers of congress, are willing to take up any legislation on their own, perhaps some sort of sanctions ledge legislation, some of which are designed to deter a future attack or meddling in a u.s. election, but so far they have been unwilling to pick a fight with this president. a lot of them, it was striking, said his efforts to clean up

this entire mess were sufficient. we'll see of course if that changes today. >> kristen welker, we've got another hour and 15 minutes before we're supposed to see sarah sanders, who i'm sure this will be one of the first questions that gets asked of her, and will she try to walk this back, will she try to somehow parse the fact that he mouthed the word "no," maybe he didn't hear the question clearly, i mean, again, a position that she's being put in to try to make something -- well, i don't want to put anything on her, but this is not -- yet again, not a good day for this white house, not a good day to be standing behind the podium behind you. >> reporter: and as you know, chris, having covered the white house, she is going to have a prep session. and you can just imagine what's happening right now in that prep session. everything that they were planning to say, everything that they were focused on, now gets a whole new dimension and they

need to figure out how to deal with this latest contradiction by president trump with his own intelligence community. and you're absolutely right, and i can tell you that there are some within the administration, some have been more public than others, who were uncomfortable with what happened in helsinki, undoubtedly scratching their heads, how could they have happened yet against. one of the questions for sarah will be has the president been briefed on the intelligence community's findings, why is he breaking with them this way. a lot of tough questions coming at sarah. and i think it's going to be a tough briefing. >> clint watts, former fbi special agent, now an msnbc national security analyst, back with us. is it even plausible to think, even in this white house where things don't run the way they always used to, that he would not have been briefed on this, that he doesn't know that -- that his dni, that all of his intelligence community believes

there's an ongoing threat here? >> even his main briefing tool, twitter, has this story of his own dni thinking this is an issue. he's been told russia is still trying to influence our politics, they are still doing hacking around the world. they are making threats against americans. they are trying to challenge us in different ways. there is no way in my mind the president isn't aware of this. again, he's just proven that he's walked back his walkback from yesterday. and unless coerced, unless there is extreme outrage from the public, and noise from capitol hill, he will not change what he really wants to believe and what he thinks, which is russia is an ally of his. they essentially are somebody he looks up to, vladimir putin is richer than him, he is more powerful than him, and president trump at any given moment has not challenged president putin. we had an indictment last friday. he wouldn't bring it up. there is no reason, if you look at any of his comments, to believe that president trump

will take on the intelligence community's assessment, that he will do anything about stopping russian interference moving forward. and it begs the question, is president okay with it? maybe he enjoys it, maybe he likes it. the fact of the matter is putin stood on the stage just on monday and said, yes, we wanted donald trump to win. he said that right in front of everybody. and so the question is why would president trump continue to discount what his own intelligence agencies are saying. and this is the basically third day in a row that we've seen him do this. he did it on monday in helsinki, yesterday in d.c., and today in this meeting. >> jennifer palmieri, in the last 45 seconds that we have here, i'll go back with what kristen said, you have been in situations where there's breaking news at the last minute, the press secretary is getting ready to go out there and you folks get together and try to figure out how you're going to answer the questions that you know are coming. is there an answer to the obvious question here? >> yes. these are the same geniuses that came up with "would" and

"wouldn't." that's the situation that they are in. and i suspect what she will do is, you know, what she often does, which is lie from the podium and his would and wouldn' wouldn't. the president accepted the intelligence of the united states even though he undermined three days in a row now. that's the situation she is often puts herself in but i suspect they'll try a search that he said he accepts their support and they have confidence in him and leave it at that. >> jennifer and germany peters and sabrina sadika and kristen welker. i can't imagine a better panel covering this president. thanks to all of you, much

appreciated. coming up another big breaking story, spy games. how did a 29-year-old double agent gained access to washington's most elite circle. we have new reporting and you won't believe it. that's next on "andrea mitchell's report" on msnbc. >> it is time now for your business of the week. she was at the top of her game with her jewelry business serving gwyneth paltrow and lady gaga, with her son diagnosed with colitis, she had to figure out to take care of him and her business. >> both have thriving. >> your business on sunday at 7:30 on msnbc. 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 is such a good time to dance ♪ ♪ it is such a good time to [ laughing ] ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo [ goose honking ] ♪ [ laughing ] a bad day on the road still beats a good one off it. ♪ progressive helps keep you out there. ♪ at the marine mammal center, the environment is everything. we want to do our very best for each and every animal, and we want to operate a sustainable facility. and pg&e has been a partner helping us to achieve that. we've helped the marine mammal center go solar, install electric vehicle charging stations,

and become more energy efficient. pg&e has allowed us to be the most sustainable organization we can be. any time you help a customer, it's a really good feeling. it's especially so when it's a customer that's doing such good and important work for the environment. together, we're building a better california. we have new information at this hour, the foreign agent,

she's headed to court in a few minutes now and is charged with conspireing with top russian officials to infiltrate the organization and including the nra. her attorney calls the charge over blown and denying his client is a russian agent. joining me now is pete williams and daniel goldman for the southern district of new york and msnbc legal analyst. we are back in russian spy novel territory. she's being compared to an infamous female russian spy by the name of chapman. >> reporter: when she pose for a picture of a real gun she was out dooing oing one of the russ spies here. this is a different kind of case that the government alleges here. they say this woman, mari

maria boutina came to the united states directed by a russian government official, her funds coming from this russian official and her enrollment as a graduate student is a cover she used to try to pretend she's a stu student advocating this interest. the hearing is whether she should be released on bail while she waits on her trial. the government says she's a flight risk that she has no real ties to the u.s. she lived for a time with a republican who was an operative and a fundraiser for the republican party and she's offered to have sex with others that she did not like the guy. she was in communication with russian intelligence with real life russian spies in the u.s.

for all those reasons they say every chance she would may try to slip in the russian embassy here in washington at which point the government could not prevent her from leaving the united states. she should remained lo locked u while she's held on this charge. >> daniel, how serious can this charge be? >> what's interesting is in the context of everything that's going on with trump and putin and the negotiations and discussions and allegations and indictment last week with rus a russia, this presents a whole another front and an interesting angle. this is another example of the department of justice clamping down on russia interference separate from the special counsel's organization. while she's unlikely to go to jail for a long period of time for failing to register as a foreign agent ultimately, it is quite a serious allegation and as pete pointed out.

today's hearing is critical. i think most likely if she's not detained prior to trial that she will somehow figure out a way to goat t get to the russia embassy. once she goes to russia, there is no way to get her back. if she's detained, that puts a lot of pressure on her and the government and the president. that's another example that russia trying to interfere if our government. >> daniel, i want ask you on paul manafort, it wants five individuals to testify under immunity agreement next week. what's your take on that and what's the reason to give them immunity? >> it could be a variety of things and the critical point of it is they'll testify two things that could in criminate themselves. so they would invoke the fifth amendment and the only way to compel them to testify is to give them immunity and could be

in connection to misdeed or misconducts or illegal acts they did with paul manafort or completely separate or bad acts or crimes that they may have committed on their own and separate apart from whatever it is they want to testify against paul manafort. it is hard to tell without knowing more. what we know is they would have to testify under oath on something that could or in criminate them and this is the way the government generally deals with someone who has not and by the way as a frame of reference, if it were so serious, they would most likely plea guilty to their crimes. this often falls into a narrow category of some bad acts but not terribly serious. >> daniel and pete, outside of the courtroom there, we appreciate it. that's going to do it for this edition of "andrea mitchell's report." tomorrow, she has the interview

with dan coats. the director national of intelligence. you can follow the story online. i am chris jansing, craig melvin is up next on an incredible busy day. >> thanks so much chris. good afternoon to you, craig melvin here in new york city. no, the last hour, president trump just said no he does not think russia is targeting the united states. to be clear again, that's contrary to what his intelligence have said and what leading lawmakers of his own party have said. with that, he digs deeper into the controversies that he's trying to put behind ever since he left hin helsinki and a russian woman accused of being a spy will be in court. the plan that