>> oh my god. all right, i now agree with nicolle from yesterday, we should never play her sound on the show anymore. clint, eddie, rick, nick, you're all fantastic. let's go get a beer and maybe we'll see you here tomorrow. i'm john heilemann in for nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now with the charles todd. >> thank you, mr. heilemann. i did not know you took everybody out for drinks. you have set a high bar for my panel here. i don't know if you have the money with me. >> i can give you a loan. >> i may need it. a wire transfer from an overseas account if you could. thank you, john. if it's thursday, why is today different from all other days? tonight, the white house brings out the big guns when it comes to election security. >> we acknowledge the threat. it is real, it is continuing. >> the scope of this foreign influence threat is both broad

and deep. >> but why now? and does any of it matter if the president keeps crying witch hunting. plus fear and loathing. the president says he wants to sit down with mueller, so why doesn't he just do it already? and red alert. with the midterms fast approaching, is the gop officially entering panic mode? this is "mtp daily" and it starts right now. good evening, i'm chuck todd here in washington. welcome to "mtp daily." we begin with trying to make sense of what happened this afternoon and perhaps more importantly why it happened and today of all days. look, we saw a surprise full-court press just a few hours ago from the white house on election security. it featured dan coats, the director of the fbi, chris wray, the president's national security advisor, john bolton, who called russia's intrusion

initially an act of war. kirstjen nielsen and the nsa director. and their message was essentially the same. the attacks are ongoing and persuasive, our democracy is in the crosshairs and this administration they say is on top of it. so is the president -- in fact they told us the president explicitly told them to make this a top priority and to have this briefing. but folks, it's arguably because of this president that some are wondering why exactly they chose today to have this press conference and why the president himself wasn't there, if this was so important to him. some may wonder why they didn't hold an election security like this immediately after he took office or when the intelligence community reaffirmed its conclusions about russian interference months after he took office. imagine that back in march or april. or how about when mueller indicted russian nationals for interfering in our election.

that would have been a good day to do it. or when mueller indicted 12 russian agents for hacking the dnc and the clinton campaign. that also would have been a good day to do it. or when the senate intelligence committee issued its recommendations about election security. or when facebook announced they uncovered new efforts to influence our elections. you get the drift. we're less than 100 days from the midterms and why did this happen the day after the president tweeted about obstructing the russia investigation as his campaign chief is on trial, as his former personal attorney is making serious allegations against him, and as there's a real risk mueller could subpoena mr. trump for testimony. folks, the bottom line here is this. for some it's going to take more than one surprise briefing to convince them that what we heard today about cracking down on russia has the fullbacking of the president and it was not an effort by a white house communications team desperate to turn the page from the other headaches they had been asked about all week. here's an exchange between a reporter and the fbi director actually on that exact question.

>> why would the american people believe what you're saying about the fbi when the president says the investigation by the special counsel is a hoax and when the press secretary yesterday said that there was a lot of corruption within the fbi? do you have any response to those things coming from the white house? >> well, i can assure the american people that the men and women of the fbi, starting from the director all the way on down, are going to follow our oaths and do our jobs. >> and what about that trump/putin press conference just two weeks ago where the president sided with putin and against the intelligence chiefs. here's more from today's briefing. >> at the press conference, the president didn't highlight any of the malign activities that you have and that his advisers have. and so should americans believe that he is listening to your advice or that he is going his own way when he's having meetings like he did with the president of russia? >> i think the president has made it abundantly clear to everybody who has responsibility

in this area that he cares deeply about it and that he expects them to do their jobs to their fullest ability and that he supports them fully. >> let's bring in tonight's panel, bill kristol, maria teresa kumar and lahnee chen. welcome all. look, i don't want to diminish the briefing itself. in fact our friends at the 4:00 i thought did a terrific job of cutting out the trap of it all and narrowing it down to coats and wray and the actual warnings they put together. watch this, i think it summarizes it better than anything we could have done. take a look. >> our focus here today is simply to tell the american people we acknowledge the threat. it is real, it is continuing, and we're doing everything we can to have a legitimate election that the american people can have trust in. >> russia attempted to interfere with the last election and

continues to engage in malign influence operations to this day. >> they stepped up their game big time in 2016. >> our adversaries are trying to undermine our country on a persistent and regular basis, whether it's election season or not. >> we continue to see a pervasive messaging campaign by russia to try to weaken and divide the united states. >> the reality is, it's going to take all of us working together to hold the field because this threat is not going away. >> i'm so glad our friends at 4:00 isolated it that way. bill, i'll let you start. if the president just saw that portion of it, i think that would be an important moment. >> it would, but of course it would be a problem for him. dan coats and the others are saying it is a real threat. we need to be alarmed about it. we need to mobilize the u.s. government against it. and it was a real threat. they stepped up their game in 2016. so, therefore, they presumably might have actually influenced

or distorted what happened in the election campaign. but what is donald trump's core point that he wants to say even more than no collusion, no collusion, no collusion? it didn't change a vote. so this is a problem. so if they had stepped up their game in 2016 and the obama administration was asleep at the switch, maybe they did change some votes. trump is not stupid -- well, i won't say stupid or not. trump wants to deny that russia could have had an influence in 2016 and they're saying russia could well have had an influence. >> i understand that some of us are being too cynical about this briefing, but again without the president on it, how do you take it credibly. >> if makes a big difference. if it were the president, it would be something else. the white house continues to want to say and they say this repeatedly, this administration has been tougher on russia than any prior administration. now, from a policy perspective, fine, make that argument. the problem is the dissidence

between senior officials making a strong statement rebuking russia and the president not saying the same thing. >> to your point, if he admits that there was interference in russia, it goes to the core of his issue that he lost the election. >> he needed help to win. >> and he needed help to win. and that goes not just to the legitimacy of the election and all of a sudden he is no longer a winner. it's psychological. >> totally, but it's also, of course, does get to the next question. gee, did anyone help the russians in 2016? was there any knowledge of what they were up to? >> could there have been a meeting at trump tower? >> so i think the degree to which this thing today, i can see why they wanted to do it from a pr point of view, see, we're tough on russia, we're doing it, the whole intelligence community. when you think about it, this creates a real narratiproblem f

trump narrative. >> there was a disconcerting moment in there. here's dan coats, three weeks removed from the trump/putin meeting. he lives in washington, the president lives in washington. he's the director of national intelligence. the number one intelligence person in the country. take a listen. >> in the run-up to the helsinki summit, u.s. officials, ambassadors to nato, ambassadors to russia said the president would raise the issue of the malign activity with president putin. he didn't discuss that at least at the press conference. you're saying today that the president has directed you to make the issue of election meddling a priority. how do you explain the disconnect between what you are saying, his advisers, and what the president has said about this issue? >> i'm not in a position to either understand fully or talk about what happened at helsinki. >> lahnee, that's the director

of national intelligence. >> that happens to be the truth, i guess. >> kudos to director coats. he handed it off to bolton, but the director of national intelligence doesn't feel like he can speak about what happened. >> this is another problem the president could solve. if the president wanted to, he could come out and say this is exactly what we talked about in helsinki. >> maybe he doesn't want to, though. >> whether he doesn't want to or -- yeah, but at least he could come out. he's not even saying here's what happened. >> part of the challenge is that we're having this press conference, part of it is definitely smoke and mirrors, but if we actually had the wherewithal to protect ourselves against elections, congress would pass special acts to address it. >> i am struggling on this smoke and mirrors. on one hand it was definitely a pr stunt. on the other hand, i'm guessing the folks in charge of those agencies are panicked. it's sort of both things are true here. >> the coats statement is really amazing. if you've been in government,

there's a reason the director of national intelligence needs to know what was discussed privately. he's got to actually task people to find out certain things. he's got to task certain people to go against russian disinformation campaigns and talk to foreign governments, so does the secretary of state. it's a real problem in terms of actually having a policy. >> think about this. >> but that is policy. >> both of you have been in government and so you know this. as we've learned, it's possible our intelligence folks have already had an idea of what the president and putin discussed. the problem is our intel guys know. dni may know. but because of russians that were surveilling, right, lahnee? >> that's exactly the problem. you're in a situation now where you're not armed fully with the information you need to combat the problem. we know russian disinformation. this is not a surprise. oh, the russians are meddling in elections. they have been meddling in elections around the world for almost two decades. the fact that they're trying to

disrupt our election in 2018, this should not be a surprise. >> incidentally, if you want to stop them, what's the best way to stop them? the president of the united states says to putin, you do this, you're going to pay a serious price. a, b, c, d. that requires an intergovernmental process to determine what prices we could make them pay. the relevant agencies of the government that act on that. do we have any sense that the president -- it's nice that they're doing this but if the president didn't say a word about this to putin in private or at the press conference standing next to putin, what does all this mean? >> the fact that coats said he didn't have a conversation with the president -- he didn't feel like he had clarity, we can't have those conversations back channelled and say we're going to do a, b, c and d. what i took out of this is he doesn't have the power to say these are how we're going to strike against russia if those conversations were even had. >> paul nakasone, the new nsa director, this is the first time i've seen him in this since he replaced mike rogers.

he said -- essentially he made it clear, we're prepared to start going on offense. but it was almost like i'm waiting for the order. that's what it sounded like to me. >> well, this is the problem we have is that there actually is a unit at the state department, the global engagement center, that's responsible for countering disinformation and allowing us to sow discord in other countries if we wanted to. that agency, the funding was not utilized by secretary tillerson. now the question is, is the administration going to push forward and do all these different things? because they have the tools. they absolutely have the tools. just go. >> nobody is giving the order. >> and part of it is this definitely was a pr stunt for the american people. but part of it you start wondering, was this also a pr stunt for trump. this is the briefing memo from his security team. >> or tonight he has his rally and he says, and by the way, i didn't need the russians to help me win.

you know that's coming tonight because they said they ramped it up in 2016. what do you think, bill? >> we'll see. the degree to which he's already undercut this message by his behavior in helsinki, both private and public i would say, is really a problem. and again, if there had been -- i mean that's why he had to personally come out actually to compensate, to fix -- begin to fix the problem of helsinki? >> what was he doing? my point is he could have been out there today. >> did this follow from an actual meeting with the president where they spent two hours going over and talking about options? >> he chaired a meeting last week. >> which was 25 minutes long or something, in the middle of which he sent a tweet, if i'm not mistaken. so john bolton got them on the phone and they're professionals, they're trying to do their best. but they do not have serious presidential leadership on this. >> well, after this, he was able -- you do wonder if he's getting the best advice because he did tweet out something about

steve stivers primary campaign. last i checked, he's already won his primary. up ahead, president trump says he wants to be interviewed by robert mueller. so what's the holdup? ♪ this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪ new laptop with 24/7 tech support. yep, thanks guys. i think he might need some support. yes start them off right. with the school supplies they need at low prices all summer long. save $200 on this dell laptop at office depot officemax.

save $200 on this dell laptop sfx: [cell phone dialing] no. no, no, no, no, no. cancel. cancel. please. aaagh! being in the know is a good thing. that's why discover will alert you if your social security number is found on any one of thousands of risky sites. are you ready to take your then you need xfinity xfi.? a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home,

and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. -we're in a small room. what?! -welcome. -[ gasps ] a bigger room?! -how many of you use car insurance? -oh. -well, what if i showed you this? -[ laughing ] ho-ho-ho! -wow. -it's a computer. -we compare rates to help you get the price and coverage that's right for you. -that's amazing! the only thing that would make this better is if my mom were here. what?! an unexpected ending!

is if my mom were here. ito take care of anyct messy situations.. and put irritation in its place. and if i can get comfortable keeping this tookus safe and protected... you can get comfortable doing the same with yours. preparation h. get comfortable with it. welcome back. believe it or not, it's now been more than six months since we first heard that special counsel robert mueller wanted to try to get a sitdown with president trump. it's now been more than three months since some of the special counsel's purported questions for the president leaked to "the new york times." the president says he wants to do this interview, but it's still not on the books. the negotiations over a potential sitdown have been going on for months, through two

sets of attorneys actually now. giuliani has told nbc news that they're making progress in the negotiations. we seem to hear that about once a month. are the president and his legal team just trying to avoid being subpoenaed and having that public fight? and what are they so afraid of when it comes to this sitdown? joining me now is somebody who knows about questioning a president under investigation, sol wisenberg. welcome back. >> thanks. >> in january is when "the times" first reported and john dowd, ty cobb were the lead counsel for the president, they were trying to negotiate some form of an interview and parameters of it. we are now in august and it's always like i'll gladly pay a you quarter tomorrow if we continue these negotiations today. why? >> well, i think a lot of people don't realize that if bob mueller goes into court to try to force the president to --

issues a subpoena, the president's team challenges it and mueller goes into court to enforce it, it is not at all a gimme that he wins. this is not exactly a situation like it was in watergate with u.s. versus nixon, because there you had both cox and jaworski, there were two separate tapes cases. they had very narrow subpoenas. they knew exactly what tapes they wanted and they already knew the tapes existed and there were incriminatory conversations on them. mueller is not in nearly as strong a legal position. >> so it's a game of chicken here? it seems as if the trump folks don't want the bad pr of looking like they're fighting a subpoena. mueller is like if i go down that road and don't win, then what. so is that why these are sort of -- why it feels like this is dragging, because nobody is afraid to say no? >> i think it's partly a game of chicken, but also the danger for

president trump's team is that the longer it takes, since it's going to be difficult for mueller anyway i think to win, the longer it takes, mueller presumably is gathering evidence all the time and he might be in a much stronger position to go in at a later time. >> is there parameters -- look, you dealt with a president that was trying to set parameters and its actions in office versus actions out of office. i've always thought if trump's team tries to say, hey, you can't -- not while he's president, so that was the argument for not asking about the obstruction part. you say that's his actions as president. but would mueller be on higher ground if he said i'm trying to interview about your actions before you were president. does that make his case of subpoenaing him easier? >> it makes his case easier of prevailing against the claim of executive privilege. because you're at the height of presidential powers when you're dealing with presidential communications.

there's a 1997 case from the d.c. circuit, that's the controlling law, that says if you want to get presidential communications and overcome executive privilege claim, it's got to be very important evidence to you and you basically -- you have to be able to say we can't get this anywhere else. >> does an interview with the president fall under -- does it fall under that? it's a presidential communication in essence that you're trying to get your hands on? >> well, no. the question is from mueller -- from my understanding of the questions, he's talking about what were you thinking -- >> right. >> -- when you sent this demand to jeff sessions. what were you thinking -- >> right. >> -- when you said this to jim comey. that's presidential communications. >> even though it's not written down anywhere, it's a thought in your head. >> well, it's a thought, so it goes to the heart of presidential decision-making and it's also communications. >> so if mueller says then, fine, i'm not going to question you on obstruction for now, but i need to know this answer about the trump tower meeting and this

answer about what jared kushner did or this answer here in the run- run-up, at that point does this then -- does it make it that much harder for the president's team to fight this subpoena? >> it makes it harder, but in these situations, in these executive privilege claims and counterclaims, there are no blanket assertions. the president can't make a blanket assertion, and mueller can't say -- can't make a blanket assertion and say we demand -- we need all of this just because we're running a criminal investigation. so he needs to say in each instance, this is why i need to find out about the trump tower meeting. and he's in a much stronger position there, you know, before the election. >> on the obstruction part, does he really need the president? i mean he's putting together a -- it looks like they're widening it out with the tweets, connecting actions, they have testimony of potentially reince priebus and don mcgahn of saying when they briefed him, for instance, on when did the president find out michael flynn was under investigation, things

like that. they have all of these other evidence. does he actually need the president or is it just a nice addition? >> i think he needs the president because i think he doesn't have a very strong obstruction case. in my view, the idea that the firing of comey is an obstruction of justice, even if he fired him to protect himself, is not a correct explanation, analysis of the current law. so i think he has -- unless he's got something else, unless he's got hush money dangling pardons in exchange for not telling the truth. >> something more than just sentiment. >> yes. and really that all goes back to it's not directly on point but the arthur andersen case which the mueller team should know about because andrew weissman was the prosecutor. the supreme court 9-0 rejected andrew weissman's broad view of what corrupt conduct is in the context of an obstruction statute. that's a 9-0 opinion. >> let me ask you this.

how would you go about getting this interview? you're seeing -- try to put yourself inside -- help us, how is mueller going about this. would you be doing this the same way they're doing it or would you have a different strategy to get the president to sit down with you? >> if he really wants them to sit down, i think he's doing the right thing because he's waiting and he's gathering evidence. the longer he waits, he actually gets more evidence. and also he's in a position to say i've been very patient with this president. then he issues the subpoena. even if trump ultimately wins in court or delays things in court, no president likes to be saying i'm defying a subpoena. it doesn't look good. that's why when we subpoenaed finally president clinton, he immediately said, okay, i'll come talk, but i need you to withdraw that subpoena. so it won't look good. >> but ultimately, is your guess that if -- do you think this happens? do you think the president ultimately agrees to it? do you think mueller ultimately has to threaten to issue the subpoena?

>> i don't think he'll ever talk to bob mueller. if i were his attorney, i would urge him not to talk to bob mueller, particularly about obstruction, because it's a lot easier to prove that you lied to a law enforcement officer than to prove obstruction of justice. >> sol wisenberg giving us a lot of wisdom today. thanks. >> thanks. >> thanks for coming on. up ahead, are republicans hitting the panic button? why one closely watched congressional district could spell bigger trouble than they thought for the gop in november. the fact is, there are over ninety-six hundred roads named "park" in the u.s. it's america's most popular street name. but allstate agents know that's where the similarity stops. if you're on park street in reno, nevada, the high winds of the washoe zephyr could damage your siding. and that's very different than living on park ave in sheboygan, wisconsin, where ice dams could cause water damage. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands?

these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com woman: it felt great not having hepatitis c. it's like a load off my shoulders. i was just excited for it to be over. harvoni is a revolutionary treatment for the most common type of chronic hepatitis c.

it's been prescribed to more than a quarter million people and is proven to cure up to 99% of patients who have had no prior treatment with 12 weeks. certain patients can be cured with just 8 weeks of harvoni. before starting harvoni your doctor will test to see if you've ever had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after harvoni treatment. tell your doctor if you've ever had hepatitis b, a liver transplant, other liver or kidney problems, hiv or any other medical conditions and about all the medicines you take including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with harvoni can cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects of harvoni include tiredness, headache and weakness. ready to let go of hep c? ask your hep c specialist about harvoni.

welcome back. tonight i'm obsessed with president trump's repeated stall in-era assertion that the press is, quote, the enemy of the people. does he really believe that or is it an applause line for people like this, those who attend trump rallies. in part because it gives him an opportunity to show reporters who is number one in their hearts when it comes to the media. it's often up to the white house press office of course to clean up mr. trump's statements. sarah sanders got that chance this afternoon when a reporter from cnn, jim acosta, asked her directly is the press the enemy of the people. here's her response. >> the president has made his position known. it's ironic, jim, that not only you in the media attack the president for his rhetoric when they frequently lower the level of conversation in this country. repeatedly, repeatedly the media

resorts to personal attacks without any content other than to incite anger. the media has attacked me personally on a number of occasions, including your own network, said i should be harassed as a life sentence. that i should be choked. i.c.e. officials are not welcome in their places of worship and personal information is shared on the internet. when i was hosted by the correspondents association of which almost all of you are members of, you brought a comedian up to attack my appearance and call me a traitor to my own gender. >> well, talk about somebody who wants to make things about themselves, we certainly sympathize with sanders for any unfair attacks on her. it is uncalled for, including those at the white house correspondents dinner which most professional members of the media made that point, but she decided to leave that aside. still, obviously she did not say no, the press is not the enemy of the people. she chose to go another way. she didn't say a thriving democracy depends on a free and critical press and the president wants everyone, including his

supporters, to know freedom of the press isn't just any amendment, it's the first amendment. it doesn't matter if you like a member of the press or not. so acosta gave the press secretary for the president of the united states a second chance at the answer. >> i appreciate your passion. i share it. i've addressed this question. i've addressed my personal feelings. i'm here to speak on behalf of the president. >> i guess that answers our question. (man) managing my type 2 diabetes wasn't my top priority. until i held her. i found my tresiba® reason. now i'm doing more to lower my a1c. i take tresiba® once a day. tresiba® controls blood sugar for 24 hours for powerful a1c reduction. (woman) we'd been counting down to his retirement. it was our tresiba® reason. he needs insulin to control his high blood sugar and, at his age, he's at greater risk for low blood sugar. tresiba® releases slow and steady and works all day and night

like the body's insulin. (vo) tresiba® is a long-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, dizziness or confusion. (man) i found my tresiba® reason. find yours. (vo) ask your health care provider about tresiba®. covered by most commercial health insurance and medicare part d plans.

new laptop with 24/7 tech support. yep, thanks guys. i think he might need some support. yes start them off right. with the school supplies they need at low prices all summer long. save $200 on this dell laptop at office depot officemax.

welcome back. with midterms around the corner, is the republican party in panic mode? should they be? boy, they're sounding like it. just look at ohio's 12th congressional district. it's a republican stronghold just outside of columbus. it holds a special election next tuesday. the republican, troy balderson is in a statistical die with the democrat, danny o'connor. this is a district donald trump won by 11 points two years ago. it's a district that hasn't been won by a democrat since ronald

reagan's first term. that's the very early '80s, folks. this was even ohio governor john kasich's original district when he served in congress. so outside republican groups have come in spending money to prop up balderson. now president trump has to campaign there in a special election this weekend. the gop is having to pull out all the stops. it's a familiar playbook at this point. georgia 6, pennsylvania 18, you get the point. they're having to protect a seat that shouldn't need protecting. on top of all of that, the republican national committee just escalated with the president's feud with the powerful koch brothers who have backed away from the president in recent days. so how alarmed are people? let's bring in michael steel, a former spokesperson for house speaker john boehner and knows exactly how those folks on capitol hill think. he was senior advisor to jeb bush in 2016. the panel is here. michael, i'll start with you. how would you characterize the mood behind the scenes and sort

of on capitol hill there on that side of pennsylvania avenue with what's happening in ohio 12 and just suddenly the koch brothers feud this trump? i get the sense that folks are suddenly going, wait a minute, this is the wrong time of the year for these fights to break open like this. >> i would describe the mood as determined and resolute. everyone knew this was going to be a very tough year. everyone knew we were facing historic headwinds. everyone knows that president trump can tweet or say things that aren't always helpful at times that aren't always helpful. but if you look at ohio 12, i think the polls are a lagging indicat indicator. i think the president's visit will goose the support among republicans in that district. and i think that your msnbc colleague, chris matthews, did a tremendous service by getting o'connor to admit what everyone knows, that he will vote for nancy pelosi for speaker and you're going to start seeing ads reminding the people of ohio 12 about that today. >> i notice there's also an ad saying is mr. baullderson goingo

support jim jordan for speaker. being in columbus ohio, ohio state, now they have multiple sports scandals right now, but having to do with jim jordan. let me ask you this. are we learning now, the old axiom used to be the political party that was in power, when they were in trouble, the goal was don't nationalize a race, we can run locally. the only way for these races -- for these republicans to survive it appears is to nationalize it. >> i think there's actually kind of a disconnect here. i think that there are districts where you have a higher college educated population, you have a more moderate electorate, things that have traditionally been battlegrounds. curbelo's seat in florida, kauffman in colorado, where the president is not helpful. but those are places where the individual member has done a great job working their district, working their individual issues, making a connection with voters in their own brand and identity. it's the more generic republican seats, seats like this one or

georgia 6 where the president himself is a huge asset. >> the koch brothers issue, seems like a lot of uncomfortable republicans on capitol hill going, wait a minute. are you really going to fight this way? how serious do you take it? >> i think it could be a real issue. i think the koch network has done an extraordinary job expanding and promoting their vision for a better america. i think that many of their passionate positions are different than those of the president. and they're often in the places where the president disagrees with the rest of the republican party. the president is not historically speaking a republican and on areas like trade, he is sharply opposed by the bulk of the rest of the party. >> maria, which side are you on in the trump/koch feud? >> it's really, really tough. it's tough only because the koch brothers are doing -- they're literally taking the karl rove playbook and siphoning off -- we're looking into social justice issues, criminal justice reform and going into these

communities and saying we don't need all of those voters, we just need a couple of them. so it's tough. they're also looking at investing in some democratic races possibly. it's really -- i think the democrats themselves are kind of like oh, shoot, what do we do next? >> they don't know what to do either. >> do we want it? >> look, i've had my differences with the kochs over the years. they're at the opposite end of the spectrum on foreign policy, for example, but they believe in certain things. they're free traders, free market people. they are pro moderate liberal views on immigration, criminal justice reform and so they have their principles. they want to support people who agree with them. and i admire that. i think that's fine. what's striking is the trump and trump lackey response. okay, we disagree on some issues. the rnc, which has become -- >> listen to this. steve bannon, listen to what steve bannon said the about the kochs. >> you take koch money, it's going to be toxic.

if you take koch money there's a punishment. if you take money from people against the president and looking to put a knife in the back of the president, you are going to pay, really? >> the official republican national committee, which is supposed to speak for the republican party, not for one guy in the white house, attacked the koch brothers and warned other donors about going down that path. donors to the republican party, you cannot have your own views. you cannot choose to support more free trade republicans. what kind of party is this now? is this pure donald trump cult personality? that's what the rnc is now about? >> it speaks to these fundamental fissures in the republican party. they're really breaking open, whether it's on trade, immigration, some of these issues where we've known this stuff exists. the question is how do you run in a competitive district, how do you run a race where you want to kind of forge your own pathway but doing so puts you at odds with the president and the expire republican apparatus. that's a big problem. >> michael steel, look, there is a penalty for opposing the president. i guess that's what the rnc is

trying to warn other donors. is that why they took a shot at the kochs? >> well, the president always puts a firm imprinting on the rnc or dnc, whichever party they're in. i think this is probably unwise. i think that a successful coalition, a successful republican majority in the house and the senate -- >> you say these things in such an understated way, michael. i think it's probably unwise. it's like, dude! i think the word "unwise" is an understatement, but go ahead. >> i think that we need all -- we need support from everyone we can get across the spectrum to maintain the republican majorities in the house and senate and that should be our highest priority this year, not disagreements. >> maria, you would work wngt koch brothers on criminal justice reform and immigration reform. are you comfortable with -- you have your own interests and own group that you lead. how are you -- >> i actually think it's very difficult because they are also -- the koch brothers are also behind a lot of the voter

suppression. >> so you would have a problem with it. >> i would have a very hard time with it. i believe that their long-term strategy is actually to divide the democratic progressive base by siphoning off progressive voters and not because they're well intentioned. for most folks people would say they're more libertarian and they're like we're libertarian but we don't understand what's happening in the white house. this is a complete dichotomy for them. >> for me it's the rnc trying to intimidate other donors from having their own opinions. i wonder how other donors will react to that. >> and candidates. >> that's undemocratic and most donors that i know aren't going to take that. they actually think that they're pretty smart, that's why they have money, right? >> a lot of these candidates, they want his endorsement but don't want to literally stand next to him. >> michael steel, it is never unwise to have you on, so thank you for coming on, sir. and playing the role of allowing me to use that joke at least. in all honesty, thank you. panel, stick around. up ahead, paul manafort's

bookkeeper takes the stand in his trial. do the numbers add up? hey allergy muddlers.

are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? try zyrtec®. it's starts working hard at hour one. and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec® and muddle no more®. welcome back. tonight in "meet the midterms" if it's thursday, voters aren't usually voting. but they are today because our friends in tennessee have decided to make thursday primary day. and here's what we're watching. first, the governor's race. diane black does not have an endorsement from the president, but she sure is running like she

does. check out this ad. >> only one candidate helped write the trump tax cut. diane black. >> i called diane black and you came through, diane. >> and only one candidate voted to build trump's border wall. >> diane, come on up. diane black. >> black is obviously hoping tying herself to the president does put her on top. remember, the current governor is term limited. on the other race we're watching today, republican congressman david kustof is facing a challenge from the right. the president endorsed him via twitter which could keep him safe while polls close. both republican marsha blackburn and the democrat should easily win their primaries. it is the big one that we're watching in november and blackburn is set to become the first woman in tennessee history to win a republican nomination for statewide office. if black wins the gubernatorial primary, that would be two women making tennessee history on the same primary day. we'll be back with more "mtp daily" right after this. or break a trip.

and at expedia, we don't think you should be rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage. now after booking your flight, you unlock discounts on select hotels right until the day you leave. ♪ add-on advantage. discounted hotel rates when you add on to your trip. only when you book with expedia. you know how painful heartburn can be. for fast-acting, long-lasting relief, try doctor recommended gaviscon. it quickly neutralizes stomach acid and helps keep acid down for hours. relieve heartburn with fast- acting, long-lasting gaviscon.

new laptop with 24/7 tech support. yep, thanks guys. i think he might need some support. yes start them off right. with the school supplies they need at low prices all summer long. save $200 on this dell laptop at office depot officemax.

welcome back. time for "the lid" and time for your daily roundup of what's happening at the paul manafort trial. after prosecutors detailed the lavish lifestyle, now they're calling witnesses to delve into his finances. his bookkeeper testified that manafort was in serious financial trouble by early 2016 after income from his pro russia patrons in ukraine dried up. and yet, that's around the same time manafort reached out to then candidate trump to work on the campaign for free, mind you. let's bring back the panel. bill kristol, maria teresa kumar, lahnee chen. >> this trial is important. it's the first big trial. if there's a hung jury for some reason, which there could be one or two jurors for whatever

reason, trump will declare a victory. i think at that point he could really be unleashed. this thing has gone on too long, it is a witch hunti, i'm firing them witch hunt. on the other hand, if manafort is convicted, then suddenly it's hard to say if the campaign chairman was convicted of serious crimes, that the whole thing a witch hunt and then manafort could flip after conviction if he doesn't like the idea of this real serious jail sentence. then you're really, with cohen flipping and manafort, you could be off to the races on trump tower and all that. the trial will be over in a couple weeks, right? >> soon. >> august will be interesting. >> we don't even know. >> i want to sort of steer things to the weird obstruction thing, the interview back and forth, but there's no way to kick off that conversation better than with your confusing mash of rudy giuliani.

here it is. >> it's pretty clear a president can't be subpoenaed to a criminal proceeding about him. if he wanted to obstruct it, he'd obstruct it, end it. you'd all battle whether he has the legal right to do that, which i think he does. if the president is acting within his capacity as president and he fires someone, that can't be questioned. but he is not obviously going to give up his right to pardon if a mischarge mischar mischar mischarge carriage of -- miscarriage of justice. of course he could. collusion is not a crime. you cannot indict the president. >> so why do we think -- i threw all that out there because why do we think we're at month eight now and this is dragging on? i had saul wisenberg on and he thinks the it's a game of chicken, mueller is not 100% he'd win that subpoena. the white house is not afraid of a subpoena. this is ridiculous. >> i'm not sure rudy giuliani is

helping the president's case. it seems to me he had a career as a credible federal prosecutor. >> are you saying he's no longer going to be known as credible? >> he may be known as something else now. this is part of the challenge. >> he showed his true -- like the way he wanted to tip himself was when he was a surrogate for the president. >> he's already a different guy than he was in '08. >> oh, yeah. >> i don't agree he's helped objectively. they've driven mueller's numbers down a bit. >> p.r.-wise, i'm with you. >> they've sold this ridiculous story in the last 48 hours, the president really wants to testify. he just wants to sit and see mueller face to face. the idea that people report that, i think it's correct people. it's what trump is telling people because he's not dumb. he knows it's a good image for him if people go out and say, the president really does want to testify. he's not going to testify. he doesn't want to testify.

he knows there are things he doesn't want to come out. i don't think there will be. i don't think -- i think he won't testify, and i think mueller will go ahead and report whatever he reports and indict whoever he indicts without talking to trump. >> i think this is part of their largest strategy, the moment they have a talking point and put it on the air and we keep repeating it and sowing the seeds of maybe he's right, maybe we can indict him, and maybe he actually will come forward, and that's when they win the pr game. >> they haven't found one argument, great point, maria. >> i've run into people -- if he wants to testify, then he probably really is innocent, or he thinks he's innocent. he's not really guilty. guilty people don't want to testify or meet with someone like bob mueller. how do we know he wants to meet with bob mueller? he told ivanka, or a bunch of reporters. >> i don't believe he does. >> don't you agree the reporting has been sort of credulous on this? >> you're trapped by your

sources. i have the sources too. that's what they're telling you. i have no reason to believe, as you said, i think the president is claiming this because it's not as if he hasn't sat for depositions before and been comfortable looking ridiculous not answering questions. >> the interesting question is whether this back and forth continues to a point where then it becomes, well, look, mueller's got to wrap this up. it's going on too long. >> and mueller says i can't wrap it up until i talk to him. >> he could say that. but mueller realizes as he gets closer to the election, he has a comey problem. if he puts out a report, he's got to put it out early enough before the election. >> i don't think he's worried about that. i think he's seeing what happens with manafort. manafort is key. >> see what the manafort trial does, and then maybe reassess. we actually came to a conclusion. bill, maria, loni, you're free to go. (phone ping)

gentlemen, i have just received word!

the louisiana purchase, is complete! instant purchase notifications from capital one . technology this helpful... could make history. what's in your wallet? 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. 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. are you ready to take your then you need xfinity xfi.?

a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. . well, in case you missed it, apparently the "e" in ebay stands for embassy. the u.s. embassy in london moved to a new building in january, the president's been pretty proud of it. they're getting rid of surplus items by holding an online yard sail. they're selling old coffee tables and cabinets. but some of them are pretty

unusual. like this one. how about 112 packs of toilet paper? they're mini jumbos. or maybe a slightly used volvo sedan with right-hand side steering, street legal here in the united states, but good luck using it. then we saw this lamp. it's white, it's ceramic. no shade. 120 pounds. that's $156 american dollars. for a lamp without a shade. that got us thinking. we are moving to new offices soon, new buildings soon on the other side of d.c. maybe our junk can become your treasure. cue the selling music, richard. how about an authentic dehydrated george w. bush for president water bottle. just add water, rehydrates, it's a 2004 edition, limited, of course, piece of political history right there. wouldn't that look great in your

refrigerator, it's yours for a mere $600. one of a kind. how about these wooden russian nesting dolls. $750. finally a hunk of coal from a west virginia mine hand picked by yours truly, clean coal, one of a kind item, yours for $5,000, and a certificate of authenticity comes with it because, you know, we're those kind of people. hurry up, send in your bids today. the volvo is mine. "the beat" starts right now. ali velshi is in for ari. >> hope you make a lot of money from your sales. this is "the beat." i'm ali velshi in more ari melber. bob mueller wants to interview this russian pop star who helped set up the