ai ready. secure to the core. the ibm cloud is the cloud for smarter business. i'm going to say thanks for charlie, jonathan and nick. "mtp daily" starts right now. >> that's pretty good. you did that in three seconds. >> i didn't want to take away any of your time. >> thank you, much appreciated. well, if it's thursday, as george orwell said, it's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. tonight, the real motive behind the president's growing authoritarian behavior. >> just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. >> plus, tweet exposure. why the special counsel is zeroing in on the president's tweets. and tariff backlash. has mr. trump lost the pulse of

the heartland? >> we're not bailing out any farmers. >> could trump voters in 2020 and 2016 elect democrats in 2018 in the midwest? >> the farmers love me. >> this is "mtp daily" and it starts right now. good evening, i'm chuck todd here in washington. buckle up, folks. there is reporting in "the new york times" that suggests bob mueller thinks some of the president's tweets might be evidence of obstruction of justice or even witness tampering. and that's not all. "the wall street journal" is reporting that the trump organization cfo, allen weisselberg, somebody we introduced you to yesterday, known as the president's long-time financial gate keeper, is being called to testify before a grand jury in a criminal case involving the president's personal attorney or

former personal attorney, who, by the way, has publicly fumed -- turned against the president, and that's not all. 50 new subpoenas have just been requested by prosecutors in the case against the president's former campaign chief, paul manafort, whose trial, by the way, begins in just a few days. and all of these are developments that happened in just the last few hours. folks, amid this accelerating frenzy of legal activity embroiling this president and his allies, we're also seeing a phenomenon of what you might call creeping authoritarianism from this president and his allies. and this creeping authoritarianism seems like it might be part of an attempt to regain, disrupt or overtake the narrative of legal woes that i just mentioned. the white house retaliated against a reporter yesterday after she did what reporters do. she tried to get the president to answer a few tough questions about russia and his personal attorney during a media scrum. the president's allies in the white house are recruiting members for an effort to impeach

the republican-appointed deputy attorney general who just by happenstance oversees the russia investigation. the secretary of state just testified before congress in a performance that left many democrats and a few top republicans with a pretty sour taste in their mouths. the president's national security advisor is now saying that the russia investigation is a witch hunt, which is a stunning reversal for someone who just last year, this is john bolton, called the crimes that mueller is investigating a, quote, true act of war against the united states, referring to the russian interference. and i haven't even mentioned the president's rhetoric this week thaterily invoked george orwell or the white house's threat to take away security clearances from folks who have questioned the president's loyalties when it comes to russia. everything i just mentioned has basically happened in the last 72 hours. it is a rare collision of legal battles and political warfare

involving the president. we have no idea what happens next. matt miller is an msnbc justice and security analyst. he was the chief spokesman for the justice department under president obama. he will join our panel of lee ann caldwell, john harwood, cnbc's editor at large, and alfonso aguilar is the president of the latina partnership for conservative principles and former chief of the office of u.s. citizenship. matt, let me start with you and the various legal developments just today. first let me start with the subpoena of the trump organization's long-time cfo, allen weisselberg, who, by the way, was originally hired by the president's father, fred trump. that's how far back he goes. he gets subpoenaed in the investigation that's going on in the southern district of new york. does that mean all the questions that are asked of him will only involve whatever they're investigating or does mueller have a piece of him too?

>> we don't know the answer to that, but this every well could ask questions on behalf of another district, on behalf of another prosecutor in the department. doj does that all the time. i think the interesting thing about the subpoena, we've never seen really the full scope of the sdny investigation. we know obviously it involves michael cohen. it involves something to do with campaign finance, the stormy daniels' payments, but it's always seemed very unlikely that it is just the campaign finance violation that they're investigating, given the search warrant that they executed. you don't come in that hard against the president's personal attorney unless it's more serious than that. so the question for me has been is it also his individual legal liabilities, maybe his taxi business, maybe something else or is it related trump liabilities connected to his business in new york. and the subpoena of the cfo of his company would lead you to believe it's the latter that they're looking not just at cohen's personal liabilities, but the problems trump has inside his business. >> and the one other legal

question i'd like you to tackle, so 50 subpoenas for the trial. common, uncommon, is that a lot, not a lot, how would you characterize that? >> i think that's pretty common. you know, whenever you're getting ready for a trial like this, you have a big list of witnesses. it doesn't mean he'll call 50 witnesses, but you get 50 subpoenas ready to go because you don't know exactly how the trial is going to go. you see how it unfolds. you have a big universe of witnesses. he'll probably end up calling some number smaller than 50, i would guess. >> john harwood, what are we seeing -- how should we be paying attention to the current story right now? it's like everything the president is doing with the creeping authoritarian is clearly just about protecting himself on russia. i don't think he's embracing the idea of authoritarianism, he's just trying to protect himself. at the same time, this mueller thing keeps slogging. between michael cohen and alan

we s -- al i'd be petrified right now. >> i think mueller is coming for him hard, the southern district of new york coming for cohen. cohen is getting ready to cooperate, there's every sign that he's going to do that. so if you're the president, what do you try to do? you try to distract, you try to attack the investigators, you try to attack press, you lie. all of this is standard issue behavior for president trump and i suspect it's going to get more intense the more threatened he feels. the one thing that i've been curious about and matt and i were actually talking about this earlier today is i don't quite understand this lengthy tease by michael cohen about is he going to flip or not. >> i don't understand it either. >> he sent that signal weeks ago. if he was trolling for a pardon, donald trump gets that. if he was signaling to bob mueller and the southern

district, i'm ready to cooperate, they get it. so i don't understand why nobody has gotten off the dime and figured out exactly where he is. because if he does cooperate, you would not think he's going to be publicly releasing tapes in this manner. >> look, i do agree. the president clearly doesn't like to know that he's being investigated. i don't know if he feels cornered or he feels like they're trying to corner him. the frustration here is that he needs to understand that an average investigation of a special counsel lasts about 900 days. this investigation is into 450 days. >> we're not probably halfway over. >> and they just announced they're postponing the summit at the white house with putin until january because he hopes that this will be over by the end of the year. that's not going to happen. this is going to continue. so, look, in terms of -- however, i find interesting that mueller is saying now they're looking at the tweets. obviously, and we've mentioned it in the show before, when

you're under investigation, you don't want to talk publicly about the investigation and this is exactly what the president has been doing in public statements and tweets. at the same time, rudy giuliani makes an interesting point. this is about obstruction of justice. when you obstruct justice, you do it in private. >> well, he made that point. i'll going to get in -- just to tease the next segment, you're doing a very good job of helping. i want to unpack this because that is a question. what are they looking at. an individual tweet is done in public, but is the pattern suddenly something here and that's fascinating. what do you make of the pattern. you're a lawyer. >> right. you have to show an intent, a criminal intent to actually obstruct. >> the president calling it a witch hunt all the time? some might argue that's intent. >> but you're the president of the united states, you're making public comments. the other thing is if you're doing it privately, destroying information. >> it's funny, leeanne, alfonso says the president seems to bring it up at odd times. he just brought it up, russia

and the investigation while doing his trade talk. take a listen. >> they analyzed every word. they say did he say that? could it have been? did he say something positive about russia? i think he loves russia. a >> that was the tariff speech, by the way. i just thought i'd let people know. >> have we ever seen trump stay on topic for his entire speech? it doesn't happen. he's obsessed with these issues. he's obsessed with russia, he's obsessed with the mueller investigation. one of the things that's interesting with the weisselberg development is one thing we haven't seen is his tax returns, he's very protective of his financial dealings. so i think this is another thing that will just get under his skin.

>> if his net worth leaks out and it is what a lot of people assume it is, which is it don't have -- >> not much. >> it don't have ten zeros, you know, it might only have eight zeros or seven. >> correct me if i'm wrong, but i assume that bob mueller has those tax returns. >> he should already have them. matt miller, correct me if i'm wrong, but in something -- a case as complicated as he's doing, how easy or hard would it be to subpoena tax returns of people that are subject of an investigation, particularly when you have so many financial transactions involved? >> it's very easy. you have to get the permission of the tax division within doj and go to a judge in private and ask permission to get them from the irs. by the way, donald trump would never even know if mueller had his tax returns because he would have gotten them not from trump, not from his accountant but from the irs. so it would be unusual, i think, if he doesn't have them. >> matt, sticking with you here a second, the rod rosenstein stunt that mark meadows, jim jordan in the house, it does

seem that they backed off forcing a vote, probably because they knew they didn't have the votes. jeff sessions quickly decided to say, you know, how much he stands behind rosenstein. i know you still, former justice department guy, behind the scenes what is -- what do the rank and file justice folks who are sort of the apolitical types, the ones that report to rosenstein and sessions, how do they handle all of this? >> you know, there's a little bit of dichotomy. if you go back to may of 2017 when comey was fired, there was practically a rebellion against both sessions and rosenstein for their role in that firing. rosenstein has rebuilt his credibility with the rank and file quite a bit. you hear a lot of people giving him credit to standing up to the president and standing up to congress. it doesn't mean he's always gotten it right. i'm one of them that thinks he's turned too much over to congress. but they give him credit for standing stuff. sessions is the opposite. you hear from people why doesn't

he stand up for himself, why doesn't he stand up for the work we do when he gets attacked by the president. then when he does things like this speech the other day, where he comes out and repeats lock her up, instead of defending the department and saying, you know what, that's not how the justice department works in this country. we're past demoralizing, i don't think anyone is demoralized anymore, it's just more frustrated with him at this point. >> leeanne, why didn't jordan and meadows force this vote? >> because they didn't have the votes. they only had 11 members co-sign on to this impeachment bill resolution. if they lost, then the issue would be over and so they didn't want to risk that. >> they did make history. the first effort to impeach a public official for doing his job with integrity. that's what's going on here. >> the truth is we're talking about it. it brings attention to jim jordan. >> it's all designed to give jim jordan something to talk about. >> he's announced today that he's running for speaker. >> right. steve scalise said he would have

voted for it, john harwood. paul ryan said he wouldn't. kevin mccarthy didn't say a word about it. what do you have to do if you want to be the leader of the house republicans? >> well, look at that caucus. steve scalise knows where the sweet spot is. paul ryan has known where the sweet spot is. he's leaving and he's trying to preserve some patina of statesmanship here while he's doing it. but steve scalise is looking for votes. this is not going to happen. it's not going anywhere. but it does tell you something about that competition. >> yes. yes, it does. i thought that was an interesting tell from scalise today. i'm tabling this with you three. matt miller, i'll let you go, thank you very much, sir. up ahead, is it possible that anything in president trump's tweets can and will be used as evidence against him? that's next. friends, colleagues, gathered here are the world's finest insurance experts. rodney -- mastermind of discounts like safe driver, paperless. the list goes on.

how about a discount for long lists? gold. mara, you save our customers hundreds for switching almost effortlessly. it's a gift. and jamie. -present. -together we are unstoppable. so, what are we gonna do? ♪ insurance. that's kind of what we do here.

sweat the details. noticing what most will never notice. it's what you do. when the thing you're making... isn't a thing. it's your reputation. the all-new ram 1500. comfortably, the most luxurious truck in its class. and why more people are switching to ram than ever before. but behr premium stain y can weather any weather. overall #1 rated, weathers it all.

find our most advanced formula exclusively at the home depot. welcome back. president trump's favorite public relations tool may now be used against him. "the new york times" is reporting that the special counsel, robert mueller, is examining president trump's tweets about attorney general jeff sessions and former fbi director james comey. those tweets of course came as the president reportedly pressured both sessions and comey in private about the investigation. like allegedly asking comey for his loyalty or trying to persuade sessions to reverse his recan you s recusal from the russia probe. so mueller is looking at whether those can be witness intimidation. rudy giuliani dismissed the interest in president trump's tweets telling "the times" if you're going to obstruct justice, you do it quietly and secretly, not in public. i'm wondering if the president loves how public rudy giuliani

is on introducing new ideas. his attempts have been quite public, whether it's misleading white house statements, floating pardons or the tweets. i'm joined now by danny cevallos who is an expert more on the defense side of things. good to see you, sir. >> good to see you too. >> so could it be used, how would you use it. is the words in a person's tweet as definitive to you in a court of law as a recording? >> yes, they can be admitted. the first problem is you have to they n authenticate the evidence. you have to demonstrate it is what it purports to be. if i try to introduce a computer printout of a web page or a tweet, then i'm going to at least need some evidence, some testimony to say that, hey, that comes from my account or some

me metadata or some computer evidence showing that it came from my computer or my iphone. if you can authenticate the tweet, there's no reasons why tweets are not statements like any others that might be against your interests that get introduced against you when used in court. let's go way back before any trial. there's no question mueller is looking at these tweets and has already reviewed all of them and does so on an on going basis. they are a glimpse into the mind of the person making those statements, the president. >> and it almost helps you with a timeline, right? if he's tweeting, maybe i ought to look at that day, who did he meet with, things like that. so let's go through a few of these tweets and let me get your take on this. so may 12th, 2017. trump tweet. james comey better hope that there are no tapes of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press.

this is literally days after comey is fired. >> right. >> how would you handle this evidence? is this evidence of obstruction? how would it be used as evidence of obstruction? >> if you look at that tweet and then the tweet that preceded it about comey before comey was fired, that first one talked about how comey or hillary was aided by comey. it was somewhat benign. but now you get into this -- the nastier tweet after comey is terminated and you start putting all of these together to show that, number one, trump is probably putting up some kind of implicit threat. comey better hope there are no tapes. it's even more so if there are no tapes. what if it's just a bald threat for comey to keep it quiet. if it was something to induce comey to remain silent, especially in the face of any duty to speak, like, for example, in front of a grand jury or congress, then these are the kinds of things that mueller will find very interesting,

irrespective of whether or not they're eventually way down the road sought to be introduced at a trial. >> could you -- remember, there was one controversial tweet that did border on whether it seemed to be that he did and all of a sudden his lawyer said, no, no, no, no, no, i wrote it, i wrote it. >> maybe my favorite tweet of the year. john dowd, yes. >> so i guess my question is why couldn't the president's lawyers at any point in time just make that claim. if not the lawyer wrote it, dan scavino wrote it. could you create enough reasonable doubt about whether he authors his own tweets? >> the reason that tweet that was supposedly authored by john dowd, the reason that is such a dangerous practice is that in certain circumstances, the words of someone's attorney can be imputed to the client. so that is a risk right there. but secondly, it tests the

bounds of credibility if john dowd authored this tweet. first, it contained misspellings. second, it contained what would be a very damaging statement as to criminal liability because it included the words michael flynn lied to the vice president and also the fbi, which if true suggests that president trump was aware that flynn was lying to the fbi, which is a crime. so whether it's authored by trump or his lawyers, it makes the lawyers look just galactically incompetent if they were authoring tweets that suggest criminal activity. >> so you don't think it will be difficult for the prosecution to authenticate this. but let me ask you another question. you heard rudy giuliani say if you're going to obstruct justice, you wouldn't do it so publicly. i mean is there a part of the code that i'm unaware of that says obstruction of justice has to be done in secret? >> you have to obstruct intentionally, but you don't

have to obstruct in secret behind closed doors. fracally spe that's the way it usually happens. >> so constantly saying mueller's probe is a witch hunt, if you have the questionable constitutional authority about firing him? >> i think a creative prosecutor could take what you just said and make that obstruction. then they have a decision beyond that. beyond just saying this fits into a theory of criminal liability, they have to ask themselves can i prove this beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury in my particular jurisdiction. so, yes, you can -- any creative prosecutor could take those facts and say that they constitute obstruction, because especially they constitute some form of intimidation. but it has to fit within the seven or eight or so statutes that address obstruction. you need an existing investigation or proceeding. as long as you have those elements, then you might have a

crime. >> i know it's possible to obstruct justice without the crime actually having happened, but let me ask you, how much weaker is an obstruction case if you can't prove the central crime? >> as a criminal defense attorney i would say you have a point there. but there are so many high-profile prosecutions and then low-profile prosecutions that we never hear about of section 1001 and that's making false statements to investigators. martha stewart is a famous example. so the doj and u.s. attorneys have no qualms at all about charging someone with a crime. in fact, i have to give them credit, they have to. they have to enforce this law. they have to prevent as a matter of policy people coming in for informal interviews and just lying to investigators. so it is true that in the united states there may be no underlying crime, but if you choose to come in and speak to investigators and obstruct justice by fabricating evidence or lying, then that is a separate crime even if there is no underlying crime.

and it probably has to be that way in order for the doj to do business. >> well, obviously this trial, if it ever happened, would be a political trial since it's not a normal court of law trial and so the politics of this might matter as well. but the legal aspect you have covered quite well. much appreciated, sir. thank you. up ahead, president trump bets the farm with controversial tariffs. but could they endi upsetting of a bluer wave in the heartland?

guys, i know it's so hard to trust but you've got to be strong. remember janet? she got cash back shopping with ebates and hasn't been skeptical since. where'd the money come from? stores pay ebates. psh!!! psh!!! then ebates pays you. psh!!! psh!!! psh!!! psh!!! psh!!! psh!!! psh!!! psh!!! psh!!! and they'll send you a check. psh!!!! oohh!! sign up for free. shop your favorite stores. get cash back. ebates. something to believe in. join today for a $10 bonus.

welcome back. tonight i'm obsessed with one word, a word we've all been using and using wrongly. >> meddling. >> meddling. >> meddling. >> meddling. >> meddling. >> meddling. >> meddling. >> meddling. >> meddling. >> meddling. >> meddling. >> russia did meddle. >> russians meddled. >> all of this meddling or whatever you want to call it with russians. >> if it hadn't been for you meddling kids. >> that's meddling with an m? >> vladimir putin is meddling, right? no. m merriam webster defines it as to interest one self in not one's concern. let's not sugar coat it.

that's what happened. by the way, it was a crime. so i say it's time to stop calling what russia did meddling. meddling feels pretty small, doesn't it? meddling feels weak. meddling sounds like what you're annoying neighbors or in-laws do. not mine, i love you. not what i conniving autocrat does. so what should we call what russia did. interfering? that's pretty passive. attacking? some think that's too violent. maybe we need to stwengtinvent word, putinizing. no, that gives putin too much credit. most your suggestions using #unmeddling because when it comes to calling russia out, we simply can't be caught in the middle. ♪ ♪

♪ let your perfect drive come together at the lincoln summer invitation sales event. get 0% apr on select 2018 lincoln models plus $1,000 bonus cash.

...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors.

our farmers are patriots, and they're saying the president is doing the right thing. these are incredible people, and

you know we've given them a little help yesterday. we're giving them help. we will not let anybody bully our wonderful american farmers. >> welcome back. that was president trump at a steel mill this afternoon in illinois defending his administration's sweeping tariff package. some midwest farmers that nbc news has talked to this week are not pleased with the fight over trade and the trump administration's plan to compensate farmers by sending them billions of dollars in tariff relief. >> i don't think the $12 billion is a solution. i think it's a band-aid for a temporary fix. i'm looking for a long-term solution being some good free trade. >> it's a temporary band-aid to the big problem, which is getting our exports back. i would rather sell my crop at a better price and not take any sort of government payment as a subsidy. >> might be the tariffs or his performance next to vladimir putin in helsinki, but president trump's poll numbers are taking

a beating in the midwest. our latest round of polls that focused on the midwest has the president's numbers stuck in the 30s in three states that are impacted by tariffs, wisconsin, harley davidson, michigan, steel and cars, and minnesota, corn and soybeans. and it looks like those lagging numbers are tainting the republican party at large. our poll has voters in those three states preferring a democratic controlled congress next year. a blue wave could be looming in farm country. they didn't touch iowa where democrats have been revitalized a bit. joining me now, robert leonard, news director for knia and krls, radio stations in iowa. he had an interesting op-ed this morning in "the new york times." the panel is back. mr. leonard, let me start with you. welcome to the show, sir. >> thank you, chuck. >> so the issue of tariffs, has it made the republican party vulnerable, president trump vulnerable, or is it much -- or are we overhyping it?

>> you're not overhyping it at all. nobody is overhyping it, i don't think. the entire iowa delegation to congress, our governor, all republicans except for congressman dave lobesack. they advised president trump very early that tariffs are a very bad idea. they weren't for this at all, they knew it was bad. chuck grassley, joni ernst in particular came down pretty hard saying don't do the tariffs, and they went ahead and there's going to be immediate implications. people aren't going to be able to -- there's going to be lost farms, a general hollowing out of rural america because people have notes due january 1st and they're not going to make good on them. >> just to remind people, i mean donald trump blew hillary clinton out in iowa. one of my favorite stats of 2016 is that hillary clinton lost texas by less than she lost to iowa. so rural iowa turned out in huge numbers in what was america's

sort of best swing state indicator in the midwest for decades. has president trump lost those farmers yet, or no? >> he hasn't lost a lot of them, but he will lose some when it hits their pocket books. when your friends and neighbors are losing their farm because of tariffs, it's going to be hard to go into the voting booth and cast a vote for him, cast a vote for republicans in the midterm. one of the things that people forget is that iowa had 31 or 33 pivot counties. those are counties that ballotopedia has said voted twice for obama, that's a third of our counties almost, we have 99, and those -- they went for trump. two times voting for obama and then going for trump. it could flip back real quick. >> john harwood, look, the one family of network that is focusing on this more than anybody is cnbc. the disconnect in washington between particularly the ag

tariffs versus metal tariffs, number one. the ag tariffs are having an immediate impact that i don't think the president understood. >> right. and i think if the president actually believes that people are happy with what he's doing, he's delusional, because about the only people who are in favor of what he's doing on these tariffs and the welfare payments to farmers as a result of the tariffs are maybe john baron and john miller, because, you know, yesterday i enter viewinterview >> who are they? oh, i gotcha, it was a punch line. mick mulvaney yesterday, budget director, i interviewed him and said does this policy make any sense? and he said i'm not the president, i didn't decide it. nobody is in support of this. he was -- he took those tariffs, hit the economy over the head with a hammer and now he's putting a little band-aid on the wound that he's created. the marist polls show they're a

window into the fallout. >> look, he had gotten a lot of support and good will from his base in iowa, in illinois, with the tax reform. but i think this neutralizes the impact of tax reform. i mean i think they're going to be hit by this, and now he's announcing $12 billion in a bailout. that's not enough money to compensate for the money those farmers are going to lose, and that's something he doesn't understand. by the way -- >> you're a conservative republican. how does that feel? >> terrible, terrible. not only it's a bailout, but also you're choosing sectors of the economy. >> winners and losers. >> exactly. >> tariffs is the one issue on the hill that republicans have repeatedly and continuously criticized the president over. it's the one -- >> and are comfortable doing it. >> and are comfortable doing it. they're actually willing to come out and say something public low, it's not just privately.

with this $12 billion of aid, this goes against republican orthodoxy on multiple levels. they're calling it welfare for farmers. and the token phrase on the hill these days is trade, not aid. republicans are saying this over and over again. our farmers want a market to be able to send their goods to. they don't want a bailout. >> so let me put this in political terms, robert. you've got the most heated race in iowa statewide is the governor's race. it doesn't have a senate race, but the house race is there. but let me tell you, governor reynolds obviously with the president today, how much does this complicate her? i would assume fred hubble, the democratic nominee there, the tariffs are a gift to him. >> yes, i think that that's true. i think that this is going to have impacts for republicans all the way through the state. it's a pretty interesting thing. you have to ask -- you know that

sonny purdue knows the $12 billion is nothing, so you have to ask why are they doing it? are they doing it to try to get people through the midterms? you have to -- i have to think that's the only reason that they're doing it is hoping that they can spin it into doing something for farmers to get them through the midterms. but if you can't -- if you're not going to be able to pay your loans or your neighbors aren't, that's not going to help with the midterms. >> what would you -- what are the farmers -- they know they're going to have a hard time changing trump's mind. what do democrats have to do to get them to listen to them, or was it simple low ny now that h clinton is not there, they might listen to a democratic message. >> well, a democratic message would have to be clear and lay out exactly what democrats would do differently about trade. it's been very interesting the demonizing of nafta and tpp because every large manufacturer, and we have some in my county that i spoke with, every farm organization, every leader, they really thought

nafta and tpp were very important and were working well for our communities. sure, there were things to be tinkered with, but nothing that needed to be completely thrown out. but trump and hillary, you know, bailed on it and it's -- that's very different from what i was hearing from our professional farming organizations and our manufacturing leaders. we need to get back to something like that with open markets. >> you bring up an interesting point because you're right, if the democrats are racing to the left on trade and racing away from the president, maybe no one is left to be free traders. anyway, robert leonard, thanks for joining us. much appreciated. >> thank you. up ahead, these three are sticking around. is this man the next speaker? congressman jim jordan launches his campaign to lead the house. did he just give democrats fodder to win it back?

when my hot water heater failed, she was pregnant, in-laws were coming, a little bit of water, it really- it rocked our world. i had no idea the amount of damage that water could do.

we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today. welcome back. tonight in "meet the midterms" president trump is on his way back from touting his trade agenda in the midwest. but as we showed you, our new poll is showing a red alert for a blue wave against the republican party in november. let's start in wisconsin. as we mentioned earlier, our poll has scott walker down, ready for this, 13 points in his bid for a third term. it's his fourth campaign for governor. the dtop democratic candidate i

tony evers. this is sensational for someone who's been through two elections, a recall and epitomizes what the republican party brand was at least before donald trump. in the senate race tammy baldwin has a double-digit lead as well against both potential challengers. in minnesota, tina smith is up 14 points on her likely opponent, karen helsley. they both have to get through their primary contests. and in michigan, debbie stabenow has a substantial lead over john james and sandy pensler. take all of these numbers with the polls showing president trump's approval ratings in these states in the 30s and it's not hard to see the warning signs of a blue wave coming back to the midwest. we'll be back with more "mtp daily" after this. is is not clo. this is a car protected from storms by an insurance company that knows the weather down to the square block. this is a diamond tracked on a blockchain - protected against fraud, theft and trafficking.

this is a financial transaction secure from hacks and threats others can't see. this is a patient's medical history made secure - while still available to their doctor at their fingertips. this is an asteroid live-streamed to millions of viewers from 220 miles above earth. this is ai trained by experts in 20 industries. your industry. hello. this is not the cloud you know. this is the ibm cloud. the cloud that's built for all your apps. ai ready. secure to the core. the ibm cloud is the cloud for smarter business. ♪ ♪

we carry flowers that signifyn why we want to end the disease. and we walk so that one day, there will be a white flower for alzheimer's first survivor. join the fight at alz.org/walk. well, we've got some breaking news on supposed

russian efforts to possibly interfere in the midterm elections in some criminal way. "the daily beast" is reporting based on a forensic analysis that russian hackers targeted claire mccaskill of missouri as she began her 2018 re-election campaign back in the summer of 2017. this reporting comes just two days after president trump claimed russian hackers might try to help democrats in the midterms. the panel is back. leeanne, nbc hasn't totally confirmed this story yet. "the daily beast," this is this one area of reporting that they seem to be very deeply knowledgeable about in this. this has sort of been one of their signature type of stories. claire mccaskill, it was interesting. she said she'd have more to say about this next week after they went over this. but it's a pretty detailed story. it doesn't look like it's some pr stunt. >> no. but this also goes into the warning signs that the

intelligence community has been given about this not only happened in 2016 but it's going to happen in 2018. and the reason why it's so important that the president has not given the support of the intelligence community to continue to investigate this, yesterday two members of congress, senator cantwell, senator graham sent a letter to president trump asking for an overview, an investigation into not only hacking of the electrical grid, but others are also talking about, look, what are you doing for oversight? what are you doing inside your administration to ensure that this hacking doesn't take place? in the elections. and they haven't gotten any response yet. and so there's no answers that congress is getting from the administration on what sort of oversight, what they're looking into, what sort of money are you spending on this? and so this is a big hole that we're now seeing is going to be very vulnerable. >> john howard, i actually cory gardner to be aggressive, the

type of guy that would do what marco rubio, pledge to say if this stuff shows up, we're not using it. he seems to be doing more than his party in the senate. >> and the united states. last week, he was asked, same thing that got caitlin collins barred from the rose garden yesterday, and said are the russians continuing to attack u.s. elections? and the president said no. now, later they said he meant no, as in no questions. but that is not -- >> she's never -- something he's never done before as president. >> so the president is -- he has not taken heed to dan coats' warnings as leigh ann referred to. >> blinking red light. >> exactly. and i would expect cory gardner would try to separate himself from the white house stance. >> he says, i'd label -- he would say i'd label russia

stays-sponsored terror, it's a political form of terrorism of some sort. >> they're going to continue. what's incredible is that we get this information right after the helsinki meeting where mr. trump is trying to say that we have a new relationship, things are going to be much better. he's taking advantage of you. she should be more responsible. >> he had confidence in both sides. >> exactly. so it's amazing. we're starting to see this with trump kind of change his narrative on russia, right? but i'm not surprised. i don't think anybody's surprised. >> i did promise we were going to -- what i was surprised on was the wording of his dear colleague letter. i thought, if i were a democrat running against an incumbent member of congress, i'd be using jim jordan's words. congress has not held up its end of the deal. we can change that, it's time to do what we say. a member of the republican party is saying the republican

majority in the house has the failed. >> yeah. >> how does a republican incumbent run for -- reelect me, so i can fail -- >> that's what they do, right? >> i don't understand this messaging by jordan. >> he wrote the script for democrats running. but also, this has been jim jordan's m.o. the whole time, fighting against the establishment, fighting against paul ryan. what's interesting bringing this back to trump, you have mccarthy running for speaker, trump's favorite california republican, who has raised tons of money trying to keep the republican majority in the house. and then jim jordan, an unapologetic supporter of the president. is trump going to get in the middle of this race and give his nod to one of those two people who have both been super loyal to him? that could split the republican party as well. >> i've got to say, i am

surprised, given the fact that jim jordan did not fight the establishment on the ohio state wrestling team, i am surprised that he, with a straight face, is going out to pursue the speakership. there are a lot of people in the same situation who would have resigned by now given the number of people who have complained that he ignored what was happening to them. it's kind of shocking. and he is acting as if it doesn't exist, and it's a media issue. >> right. i just think he's giving fodder to the democrats here. what do you think? >> i agree. but i don't think he's really running for speaker. if that happens, he wants to influence that race. but he could be minority leader. >> do you think that's what he's running for? >> no way. >> the base is going to blast the establishment. >> for losing. >> for losing because they were not conservative enough. >> you have mark worker the head of the republican steady committee who won't support

jordan has speaker. >> it's the tortoise. steve scalise is not running for speak. leigh, john, alfonso, thank you. this is not a bed.

it's a high-tech revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side to keep you both comfortable. and snoring? how smart is that? smarter sleep. to help you lose your dad bod, train for that marathon, and wake up with the patience of a saint. the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999. smarter sleep will change your life. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish.

in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. we all want to know you know, the new, new thing. with xfinity's retail stores, you can now see the latest. want to test drive the latest devices? be our guest. want to save on mobile? just ask. want to demo the latest innovations and technology? do it here. come see how we're making things simple, easy and awesome. plus, come in today and ask about xfinity mobile. a new kind of wireless network designed to save you money.

visit your local xfinity store today. well, i promised you yacht rocked, and i can't help but getting into yacht rock. and we were having this huge debate, if you don't spend time on satellite radio, you will have no idea what i'm talking about. but if you do, ask yourself

this. do sticks belong in yacht rock or not? would you allow sticks to be on yacht rock or not? only for the people that listen to yacht rock will find that halfway amusing or halfway offensive, depending on your view of strucks. it's a controversial call for anybody over the age of 40. anyway, we're running out of time. that's all i have for tonight. we've got a lot more going on tomorrow with "mtp daily," a deep dive on maria butina, some of us have noticed would actually be the same age as the fictional grandchild of philip and elizabeth from the americans. throwing that out there. "the beat" with ari melber starts right now. >> thank you very much. the man who might know more about donald trump than anyone else is his money man, who did his taxes, who bought his boats and helped run his company when donald trump became president.

and that man is now being ordered to speak to the feds. that is a true bombshell when it comes to these investigations. the story first broken by the wall street journal, a long-time executive subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury. here's what you need to know. this article reports that he is considered a witness and this is regarding the criminal probe into trump's former lawyer and self-described fixer, michael cohen. so that is a separate investigation than mueller. they can be related. it's possible the man has already testified. "the wall street journal" report does not state when he is scheduled to talk or if he already has, let alone if it would be secret grand jury questioning. there's a lot of ground to cover. we do know that beyond the family trump business, he reportedly handled personal matters for trump, paying