the best two hours have now come to a close for me. happy friday, everybody. and have a great weekend. don't worry, you're in good hands. "deadline white house" with the amazing nicolle wallace starts right /s >> that's katy tur after two hours of live tv. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in washington, d.c. we're keeping a close eye on paul manafort's this hour. it was on pause for most of the day today as genentech in the case huddled with lawyers from both sides. it is unclear what was discussed in the hours-long secretive meetings or what the delay will mean for robert mueller's case against donald trump's former campaign chairman paul manafort. the follows a new ruling that serves as a flashing light to donald trump's lawyers, the russia investigation is moving full steam ahead and the public has seen the tip of the iceberg. from "the new york times," the federal judge overseeing the

federal trial of paul manafort sealed the private discussion after prosecutors from the special counsel's office armageddon audi they needed to protect an ongoing investigation. the conversation concerned whether investigators had questioned rick gates, the government's star witness in and mr. manafort's long-time deputy about mr. trump's campaign. they needed to protect the secrecy and live it disclosure of new information. the judge t.s. ellis ruled in their favor. the ruling confirms what we believed to be true rick gates has more to offer evidence than manafort's alleged financial crimes that. could mean danger for trump or his inner circle. maybe that explains the new battle cry emanating louder than ever from trump's orbit. >> if it isn't over by september we have a very serious violation of the justice department rules that you shouldn't be conducting one of these investigations in

the 06-day period. >> this needs to be over with soon. i think it's been very bad for the country and we're at a point in this inquiry where they can wrap it up. >> mayor, i know you've said and i said we want to see this come to closure soon here. mayor? >> yes, we do. it's about time that it ends. i also think and i hope the special counsel is sensitive it as we are. we do not want to run into the november elections. so you back up from that, this should be over with by september 1st. >> i think it needs to end very soon and it needs to end very soon because the nature of what's taking place here is irregular and that's being kind. >> from lock her up to wrap it up, that sounds like lawyer speak for we might be losing. the latest evolution of their messaging strategy from no dough lugs to collusion isn't really a crime to let's call the whole thing off, we see more signs today mueller is zeroing in on another trump ally, roger stone. he's being investigated for communicating with russians over stolen e-mails.

he seems likely to become the probe's next target. one of his close allies, the monterey madam, testifying before a grand jury in the investigation today while another one of stone's allies is being held in contempt of court today for refusing to comply with the judge's order to testify, which means he's choosing potential jail time over cooperating with robert mueller. here to help us understand all the day's developments, joips advance, former u.s. attorney now law professor msnbc contributor, frank figliuzzi former assistant director for counter intelligence at the fbi and msnbc contributor. on set with us white house reporter from the washington post ashley parker and correspondent for the north county times. joyce, let me start with you and the machinations of this for a nonlawyer and someone outside this court, it seems like a bizarre, bizarre trial with a very interesting character as a judge. tell us what it means that they were on pause for so long, do we know what they were doing and what are the scenarios for what could have been going on.

>> we don't know exactly what was going on, but this really isn't at all unusual for a tl l trial. sometimes when you get to this point and even earlier on in a case, issues can come up. there can be the need for a lot of back and forth between the judge and the lawyers as they sort out legal issues. and sometimes you can see juries either sitting in a courtroom or back in the jury room wondering what the delay is about because the judge doesn't necessarily share it with them either if it's purely a legal issue about admissible evidence. here we had a little bit of a curiosity thinking that perhaps it might involve jurors who had begun to deliberate prematurely. the rule is that the jurors aren't supposed to begin to discuss the evidence until the trial is complete and until they're all in the room together. they are admonished not to talk in twos or threes, but only to deliberate as an entire group. we don't know for certain there is any problem along those lines. the judge did give an additional

instruction that they are back in the room and listening to evidence or it looks like the parties agreed the case was ready to move forward. >> frank, i know we were pinging you all day with questions about your theories of what this pause could have been about. can you share them with our viewers? >> well, my first thought was indeed what appears on its face, that some juror may have been reported as saying or doing something inappropriate, but as joyce said, this happens all the time. it can be remedied. the key for me on this is whether there is any appealable issue, but it sounds like there is no disagreement between the defense and the prosecution on this. it sounds like it was an amicable agreement to resolve it. and if this is what happened, we move on. and don't forget, there are alternate jurors that if indeed this continues to happen, that's why you have alternates. you can insert someone and dismiss the juror who is causing an issue. that may have been it. we may be wrong. there may have been something else going on as well. >> joyce vance, let me ask you to weigh in on the other story

we mentioned at the top of the show, this ruling that this conversation could be sealed because of concerns about gates' testimony in the context of the larger ongoing investigation. >> this, i think, is very interesting. we also heard this week that it was possible that gates wouldn't serve any jail time at all at the end of these proceedings. and you'll remember that he was indicted along with manafort for the whole kit and kaboodle. i don't think it's by testifying in the manafort trial. the government didn't need gates to prove this case. they must be getting assistance from him on something else and that something else is the content of those six sealed pages of the transcript from yesterday. gates was around for the republican convention. he may know details, for instance, about how the republican party platform was

softened towards ukraine. he could know about money donors to the inauguration. he could know about contacts between people involved in the campaign and russians. so there are a lot of possibilities for what he might be able to narrate. we'll just have to remain curious a little bit longer. >> frank figliuzzi, he was around on the campaign when figures like carter page were also swirling around, that rather chaotic campaign. george papadopoulos was around that campaign. it started as a counter intelligence investigation, something that you know a little bit about. how would you use rick gates in the larger investigation into potential collusion or conspiracy with the russians to impact the 2016 campaign? what questions would you have him answer in exchange for what joyce just described, potentially no or little jail time? >> so i never thought that rick gates was all about a white collar crime case against manafort. he can answer the key question, the umbrella question of what this is all about, which is to

what extent did this campaign collude with an adversarial government to impact the outcome of an election. and did the president of the united states have as his campaign chairman an agent of a foreign power. that's what gates gets to the heart of. that's what he's answering. and i believe he knows the answers to those questions and has already provided them to the mueller team. >> and you reminded us today that gates was around a lot longer than manafort was. there's been a lot of fire attacking manafort saying he wasn't around long, he gets the papadopoulos coffee boy treatment. rick gates was and they haven't done as nearly a effective job as distancing themselves from the transition, he was around the white house, he was in and around until he was indicted. >> rick gates is a survivor. i remember on the campaign the president wants him gone, the president wants him fired, then

there he was. not only does he have this perch, but he's there through the rest of the campaign. the convention is mentioned. ment he had a role on the inaugural committee. through president trump he was deeply involved in the day-to-day business of the white house, spotted on those 16 or 18 acres. really, as you said, up until the day he was indicted. this is another reminder of how deep the tentacles of mueller's probe. >> do you have any sense, mike schmidt, there is any growing anxiety about all these fronts they're managing now since the manafort trial? the ruling yesterday there is a value gates has to the larger investigation, we haven't heard much from cohen this week. that is obviously ongoing and unfolding. is the president there sort of

stewing? is that why we see jay and rudy? >> jay and rudy are keeping the president calm as much as possible and trying to hold him back -- >> he'd be doing more if they weren't out will? >> they've shown time and time again the failure as he continues to tweet about this and talk about it in ways that pretty much everyone in the legal community says are damaging. why would he continue to talk about such sensitive matters that relate directly to his own conduct? he continues to do it. so, you know, look, i think the president gets very upset a lot and he gets reported a lot in the press. he obviously has to look at this and be concerned, but i'm not sure what else he can do. i mean, he has one decision he can make to do that and that's to fire mueller and he just doesn't seem to have the guts to do that. >> you may have just waved a red flag in front of a bull, the guts to do that. jay sekulow and rudy giuliani were on the air when we came on. let's listen. >> when you say a perjury trap,

you have one witness that says this is what happened. did and then you have another witness that recalls, well, no, that's not how i recall it, it happened this way. someone writes a report and says, well, we believe this one, we don't believe that one, thus it's perjury. >> the example, no crime. if it had been said, president says go easy on him -- >> which the president says -- >> he didn't say stop it, don't do it, so no crime. however, it didn't take place according to the president. according to comey it did. now -- >> of course, if it didn't it wouldn't have mattered. but you're right. >> i'm thinking my cousin vinny . why are they acting out how the president might perjure himself in interview after interview after interview? >> this cannot be said enough. they believe the only thing that matters is public opinion. and if they can muddy the waters and make it more difficult for the average voter, the average voter will put less pressure on the house of representatives and the president will not face

impeach many. it's that simple. if they're on the air going on and on about different things making it more confusing, muddying the whole thing, then to them they think that's effective. rudy will look at the poll numbers from before he came in and where they are now, and they'd say, look, we have eroded mueller's standing with voters. that is an accomplishment for us. that's how they see it. >> joyce, it seems like that is a strategy of necessity. and if that's a strategy of necessity, it would seem the facts are not on their side. i think there are probably, what, four witnesses who can corroborate the other side of what rudy is describing, who can corroborate comey's side, andrew mccabe who is his deputy and others in the fbi. but the larger point seems to be that his own lawyers are making their client sound guilty of at least obstruction of justice and maybe making it sound like a legitimate line of inquiry to ask what he knew about the meeting with russians to get dirt ton his opponent.

>> they are on the one hand, but i think it is absolutely 100% accurate that all that they are doing here is playing the public relations strategy. they don't want to see motivated citizens doing what they did on health care or on immigration, calling their representatives on the hill and demanding impeachment. so they're willing, in essence, to sacrifice the more legal argument in favor of that strategy. but what they're describing as a perjury trap and we know we discussed this a time and two before, that it really is utterly inane. what the government has to do is prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt. so, when you have rudy saying, well, one person says one thing and another person's memory is different and the government charges perjury, that's utter nonsense because the government will have to go into court and prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. a he said she said isn't enough. when you have perhaps a president who fwetweeted he kne michael flynn lied to the fbi and the president goes to jim

comey and asked him to go light on flynn, you might be talking about obstruction and perjury and a little bit of a different manner than this he said she said that giuliani consistently talks about. >> frank figliuzzi, i want to apologize. i don't have my glasses on. apparently we put up the wrong picture of jim baker, former general counsel. i don't have my glasses on, sorry. why are they acting out the perjury scenario? that's at least the third time i've heard rudy giuliani do that in the context of what jim comey may have testified to about the firing of mike flynn. why are they doing that? we know rudy believes in hanging a lantern on your problems, but this is a spotlight. >> as joyce said, when you're deciding something beyond reasonable doubt, you have to put things on a scale, right? and you have to start determining who do i believe here and is there enough credible evidence to make a conclusion. what they're afraid of is that not that the president is going to fall into some trap, but rather the president is unable to tell the truth because the

truth is going to jamb him up. that's the problem here. he's going to have to lie to the mueller team if he's going to come out of this and they know that they're trapped. it's not mueller trapping them. they have put themselves in a box. the president himself has said conflicting statements so it's a question of -- not only a question of who do we believe, which statement from the president do we get to believe. so this is simply why i'm continuing to assert that he's not going to be interviewed. if he is interviewed, it will be completely on his own against all advice of counsel. i'd love to see it happen. >> no one will be there. >> i'd love to see it happen. >> is that going to happen? >> what they also have to do, if the president doesn't do an interview and it looks like it's going to be difficult, they're going to have to explain that to the public. there is going to be a political question. if you did nothing wrong, why can't you answer questions? so part of softening the public relations thing is coming up with an explanation for that. and that is why you see them say

perjury trap because they're going to have to say to the public, look, here's why he can't do this thing, that most people would say if he did nothing wrong why can't you answer. >> that would be their strategy for ignoring a subpoena? >> the president would have to explain. he can say this is a witch hunt over and over again. the average person will say, just go and answer the questions. >> if you have nothing to hide, that's what i tell my 6-year-old. ashley parker, roger stone seems to be the person in the swirl today on the collusion side of the investigation, the manhattan madam went in and testified, another former aide is being held in contempt of court today. does that trigger any anxiety around the don junior circle or the jared circle or any of the other individuals who were in the room with the russians who promised dirt? >> i think right now yes and no. roger stone is pretty loyal to the president. they have a very complicated love/hate relationship that goes back decades. >> far as we know. >> but stone sort of understands the psychology of president trump better than most people in

that orbit. and he said publicly so far he's not going to testify against the president. i think that's probably viewed as reassuring, although this white house understands that people can flip like, for instance, michael cohen. >> michael flynn. >> and michael flynn. and rick gates. so -- >> and pretty much everybody except paul manafort has flipped. >> so they're aware that people can change when they're getting pressed by the feds. when you have someone, self described colorful character, practitioner of the dark arts like roger stone who relishes in that image and plays up that idea of himself, it's never great if he ends up going before mueller's team. >> he does have these long ties to donald trump. it doesn't seem like a good fact, good piece of the pattern. the person who arguably was around him in the context of politics the longest was the colluder. >> right. >> not a good fact. >> not a good fact. >> frank, what would you do as an investigator if you were able to put roger stone in the

category of people who you can prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt if you were able to do that, able to charge him? where does he fit into this collusion puzzle? >> yeah, i think we've been -- because there's been so many people to focus on, we've been ignoring the significance of stone. stone is a significant player here because, let's not forget, the whole connection to russian social media propaganda, the connection to julian assange, the wikileaks issue, hacking, all of this is encircling stone. and mueller is getting closer and closer. let's not forget that the manhattan madam was interviewed first voluntarily by the mueller team, and then put in front of a grand jury. that tells us she said something very significant, very worthwhile, and likely against stone or someone else being targeted by the mueller team. so this is a man to keep watching. i'm beginning to envision a cafeteria table in a federal prison where one guy says to the other guy, hey, what are you in

for? i'm in because i couldn't rat out the president. yeah, me, too. these people are going to prison. >> that's a good tv show. i think you just pitched a pilot. after the break, in service of an audience of one. the allies wake up the ante, readying subpoenas for leadership. one year after the deadly protest and counter protest had in charlottesville is this weekend. and the president who saw good people on boeing sides, well, he had one of his favorite wedge issues, football players who kneel in protest. another woman allegedly offered money to keep quiet about donald trump. all of that coming up. stay with us. alice is living with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of her body. she's also taking prescription ibrance

with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive her2- metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. alice calls it her new normal because a lot has changed, but a lot hasn't. ask your doctor about ibrance. the #1 prescribed fda-approved oral combination treatment for hr+/her2- mbc.

but he has plans today.ain. hey dad. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong.

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, that's because he'd rather have a puppet as president of the united states. >> no puppet, no puppet. you're the puppet. >> it's pretty clear -- >> first it was no puppet, you're the puppet. you colluded. rudy giuliani tweeted this this morning. maybe it's time for attorney general sessions to appoint a special counsel to investigate the conspiracy to defeat donald trump by buying and disseminating false dossiers obtaining illegal wires -- and as is so often the case in the new world in which we live, giuliani has back up on capitol hill. a new report out today says the republican chairman of the house judiciary committee is readying subpoenas for people connected to the controversial steele dossier. sources tell the hill. the committee will go after other current and former fbi and d.o.j. officials including jim baker, sally moyer, jonathan

moffa and george toskas, the sources said. joyce is back. ashley is on set. you believe it to be an important piece of all this. why? >> once again, nicolle, we are seeing not oversight, but rather complete attempts to obstruct by calling as witnesses under subpoena to the hill people who -- some of whom are career public servants. jonathan moffa, for example, is a long-time career intelligence analyst in the counter intelligence division of the fbi. he's very smart. heeds been with this case since day one. so what they're doing is they have identified him by name. they are going to call him to the hill under subpoena. they are going to threaten contempt if he doesn't spill everything he knows as sensitive as it is about this case, and it's shameful that they're going to attack a public servant for political reasons. that's what we're going to watch happen here and i hope it doesn't happen. >> mike schmidt, how do they

destroy the credibility of the fbi attacks land at the fbi? some of these people were, are highly regarded figures who had the bureau's interest in mind and they are now political chum in the water for rudy and the president. >> look at the damage they've done. the director, the deputy director, the general counsel and the top counter intelligence agent. so, in that sense they've cleared out the folks the closest to this investigation. i think the fbi is as good enough of an organization that whoever replaced those folks are probably as capable. but what a deterrent and what a success it has been to hollow out the agency in the way that they have. >> but is there any fear -- all those people did that we just named, they've scrutinized the fisa application. they've scrutinized the dossier application. the surveillance was fruitful enough to continue to reauthorize it. is there any change how they go about doing their jobs because of these attacks? >> i don't think so. they're probably a little more

nervous. do you really want to be on a big case now if you're a line fbi agent, you may get called before congress, have hundreds of thousands of legal bill turnout like pete strzok with millions of dollars of legal bills. there is a deterrent to get if involved. if you're the republicans i can see why they've done that. the fbi has been the greatest gift to donald trump in this story. the page and strzok text messages, between the agent leading into the investigation in which he expresses an tip-trump bias. thats what an important thing for trump trying to turn the narrative in the other direction. >> frank, do you want to get in on that? >> it's a good question as to whether or not people will think differently or do their business differently in the fbi. and the one thing that i can think of is actually unfortunate, which is that now fbi professionals have to start thinking politically. how is this going to be perceived on the hill? how is this going to spin politically? should we be doing something to counter political appearances? i can tell you that's not how

fbi professionals thought in the past. they just go about their business. the unfortunate by product of this is we are now going to have fbi professionals at all levels thinking about political repercussions and trying to figure out what the game is going to be on the hill. >> is there anyone in the white house that's concerned about any of this, that they see, is there anyone in leg affairs, national security apparatus, the counsel's office that is ever squeamish about what the president's defenders in the house do? >> i will say very, very, very privately, there are some people who think it is wildly unhelpful, some of the sort of more overtly political initiatives that are getting started in the house. but it's certainly not something anyone would, as we discussed before, resign over or even raise concerns in a public way. >> if rod rosenstein is there in the morning, callahan or chris wray, do any of them turn on cable in the afternoon and see, goodlatte or trey gowdy really

decimating the integrity of the fbi or d.o.j., back off, i was with chris wray. he's doing his best to turnover a new leaf is a right word, do any of them try to stop this or is it green lit? is it ordered from the white house? >> it's not ortded from the white house, but i think the way a lot of people in general -- this is somewhat of a blanket statement, have learned to deal with this white house and this president as sort of tuning out what can euphemistically be described as the noise, right. it's not helpful to try to engage the president on his tweets. it's not really helpful to try to have a discussion about the latest thing that devin nunes has said. it's sort of to try to get in there and do your job and persuade or sway the president or move the institution a very tiny bit in the direction you believe it should go. and that on the whole is how people are handling a tricky situation like this. >> joyce, speaking of devin nunes, rachel maddow our colleague had a tape of him speaking privately. he never once said the president was innocent.

he never once said he thought collusion was perfectly legal. he said the opposite, collusion is criminal. what he said is if we don't protect trump from all of this, this all goes away. what does that sound like to a prosecutor or an investigator? >> whether it's technically obstruction of an investigation or not, it sounds awfully close to it. it sounds like nunes is saying we'll lie to the american people until this election is over, but then we'll come back and put an end to rod rosenstein, which means curtailing the mueller investigation. so now in advance of this election, every republican and probably democratic member in the house gothose up for reelection, those not for reelection, need to be asked, will you vote for rod rosenstein to be impeached so the mueller veg investigation can be terminated after the election is over? they need to put them on record to hold them accountable. what nunes does disgraceful, not

surprising. >> when we come back, more hush money. this time it's omarosa claiming she was offered cash to keep quiet after being fired from her white house job. that story is next. at ally, we created a savings account with a great rate. but if that's not enough, our app helps monitor your spending too. and if that's not enough to help you save, we could start a carpool. look at this traffic. don't worry. ok, if that's not enough we'll start a trainpool. oh i have a meeting in five minutes. and if that's still not enough... i got it. we'll just create a shortcut. we'll do anything, seriously anything to help you save. ally. do it right. talking 4th quarter? yes. your hair is so soft! did you use head and shoulders two in one? i did mom. wanna try it? yes. it intensely moisturizes your hair and scalp and keeps you flake free. manolo? look at my soft hair. i should be in the shot now too. try head and shoulders two in one.

that's it! get him, wooh yes! mom! my game is over. (whistle blows) parents aren't perfect. but then they make us kraft mac & cheese shapes and everything is good again.

it was always about the country. i was haunted by tweets every single day. why does he tweet this? >> should we be worried? don't say that. >> because we are worried, but i need you to say it's going to be okay. >> it is not going to be okay. >> i'm sorry, i couldn't help it. now we get know why it's not going to be okay, because former white house aide omarosa is speaking out in a new report in the washington post. the trump campaign tried to stop her. according to omarosa's new book and people familiar with the proposal, she was offered

$15,000 in hush money after she was fired from the white house in december. quote, she proposed nondisclosure agreement said omarosa could not make any comments about president trump or his family, vice-president pence or his family or any comments that could damage the president. it said she would do diversity outreach among other things for the campaign. omarosa turned down the offer. instead, writing a book titled, unhinged. an insider account of the trump white house where she called the president a racist, a bigot, and a misogynist. her book hits the shelves next week. good thing for us, we have a lot of friends from the washington post here today. phil rucker white house bureau chief joining us on set along with ashley parker opinion columnist jennifer ruben and jason johnson with the root.com is here. phil rucker, it's your report. take us through it. >> so, josh read a lot of this book and it's a pretty explosive portrayal of president trump. she describes him as a narcissist, as a racist, as a

bigot, as a misogynist, all the bad words. but there are some specific things -- >> did she leave anything out? >> ashley is smiling in here because we were joking in the office. there is a scene where michael cohen comes in the office with omarosa. president trump according to omarosa's account actually chews pieces of paper in the oval office. so there's a lot of -- >> wait, wait. let me just ask a question about this. there is so much bad news, like what would be so bad, he would eat it? >> i will just -- i will never not find that passage amusing. it's totally unverified. we should add our colleague said omarosa is wildly incredible. he did listen to some tapes omarosa made that verified what she's quoting in the book. we can't tell there is munn muching of paper. >> can we find a sound effect of chewing? we need to find that for ashley. let me read this excerpt because

it is pretty delicious. in early 2017 omarosa said she walked michael cohen -- this is so funny. sorry. then trump's personal errant hoping to flip. saw the president chewing up a piece of paper while cohen was leaving the office. this is the president of the president of the united states. good god. i saw him put a note in his mouth since trump was ever the germophobe, he was chewing and swallowing the paper. it must have been something very sensitive, she writes in the book. several white house aides laughed and said it wasn't true. why wouldn't it be true? there are all sorts of weird conduct that's happening for the first time and as mike schmidt and frank and joyce said, it isn't that he didn't do it. it's that he can get away with it. >> he hired this woman.

the fact -- >> she's not like a media plant. >> this is a loyalist. what's bizarre is she presumably knew all this when she worked at apprentice. why would she make things up in a book? $15,000 is not much. she should have held out for $150,000 like some of these other gals. is this credible? who knows. and at some point you have to kind of don't care. she doesn't have anything probative in terms of any of the scandals that i've heard of yet, so it is amusing i suppose at some level. it is indicative of the fact this president was surrounded by low life, by people who were not competent, by people who were not professional, not honest, and maybe it's going to come back to haunt him. >> jason, i was thinking about how his supporters might do this. jennifer says she was a loyalist. >> yes. >> she was a lifer. she was on board for the duration of the campaign. she did defend him against all of the attacks, attacks for being racist, attacks after

access hollywood, i think she was still out there for -- this is a defender and a loyalist turning on him. and i wonder if within that -- this is not, you know, someone from the media. this is not someone that came in and wrote a tell-all. this is someone from deep inside his inner circle. >> i say this as 134someone whos had a lot of conversations with her during the campaign. none of the stuff about him being racist is surprise surprising. i remember her saying that to me during the debates. none of this is shock being. as far as being a loyalist, no one actually thought she was loyalist. she was loathed among african-american republicans. none of them liked her. she wasn't liked in the campaign. she wasn't a loyal it. she was a hanger on when it comes to donald trump. like most people when it comes to donald trump, if it's not financially viable, $15,000, she can get in a speaking fee in certain sections. betrayal is the standard when it comes to this president. working with him, if it doesn't payoff, you have to stab him in the back. >> do you think this book --

sarah huckabee sanders sput out a response that was eerily similar to what she put out in "fire and fury." instead of telling the truth about all the good president trump and his administration are doing, this book is riddled with lies. sound like her briefings. it's sad she is trying to profit off the attacks and the media is giving her a platform. even worse, they're not taking her seriously -- let me see. we don't take a lot of you seriously. so much wrong with that. phil rucker, the way to say about a book, what you're all sayi saying, is to ignore the book. this is not to say if you're not worried about it. >> he's not going to let these grudges occur silently. one of the problems the white house has is they don't have credibility because of the 18 months of the presidency so far where they've told the american people things that are not true. >> right, right. >> again and again and again.

so if they're now saying this book can't be taken seriously, they're not credible -- >> it's like two tarantulas in a bowl. who -- >> not credible. >> who is? what's the answer? >> probably neither one of them so you don't believe either one of them. phil brings up a good point. this is exactly what they did to push the last tell-all book to the top of the charts. >> right. >> so having sarah huckabee sanders tweet about it or put out a statement and better yet having the president tweet about it, that is what omarosa is praying for because that means she's going to sell more books. >> and i think it would be an elite fairy tale people won't buy it. people are curious. he's the president of the united states. she's a famous reality star person, i think. >> realistically speaking, she has one of the longest relationships with him of anybody in this white house right now outside of his family. omarosa was the first apprentice, 2002 or something like that. if there is anyone who actually

knows him, it is her. so that part is reasonably credible. but again, i don't think from what i've heard, i don't hear anything that we haven't already heard. i interviewed some of the black members of the apprentice including the one who comes on msnbc. no one said they're surprised. i don't know she's telling all. she's reminding us of what we already know. >> and what she saw. it's either the greatest trump troll. the attorney for stormy daniels is making a serious run for the presidency. that story is next. i landed.

i saw my leg did not look right. i was just finishing a ride. i felt this awful pain in my chest. i had a pe blood clot in my lung. i was scared. i had a dvt blood clot. having one really puts you in danger of having another. my doctor and i chose xarelto®. xarelto®. to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner that's... proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt or pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least 6 of your body's natural blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective, targeting just one critical factor. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase risk of blood clots. while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. it may increase your risk of bleeding

if you take certain medicines. get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. learn all you can... to help protect yourself from another dvt or pe. talk to your doctor about xarelto®.

do you want the same tools and seamless experience across web and tablet? yes? great! then you're ready for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. sweet! e*trade. the original place to invest online. i think it's really important that the democrats, whoever they nominate, he better be a fighter. i think i've shown a unique ability the last five or six months to take the fight to donald trump. in the event i decide to run, that's going to be a big part of my message. >> out of the courtroom and into the critically important early voting state of iowa, michael

avenatti, attorney for adult film actress stormy daniels has taken a big step to introducing himself to voters today. he will speak at the iowa wing ding in an hour. i spoke to him about an hour before we came on the air and asked him if he thinks he can win. he said, quote, there is a handful of people who can beat donald trump, i think i'm one of them. democrats have made a mistake by underestimating trump by thinking he can't win again or he only won by a few thousand votes in a state. an opponent who can connect with voters to defeat him, i think i can. voters will make that determination, of course, but i got a sneak peek at his prepared remarks tonight and they hit a lot of the right notes, telling his personal story, talking about shaking up washington and bringing more nonpoliticians into d.c. but running for president your first campaign is straight up crazy, right? donald trump didn't think so. will it work for michael avenatti? the panel is still here. what do you think? >> it could. i mean -- >> every time i was like, no, it can't. this is trolling trump. you know, someone said that --

we all said that about trump. i said that about trump. >> trump made it happen in the republican party a few years ago. you look at the field of democrats right now and afrm nat i is the one who stands out. he's the one not a politician, not a senator or mayor or what have you. if he gives the base what they're looking for and shows that he can go toe to toe with trump, he'd have a chance. >> i think the determining sort of factor for him will be what do democrats value most? if they decide they value a fighter most, people would be foolish to under estimate michael avenatti. >> i have always said they need a fighter. that's why i said, whether it's elizabeth warren, governor of virginia, you need someone who is actually going to go head to head with donald trump. you need someone who is not going to try and take the high road because the high road doesn't work with this guy. to be honest with you, an avenatti/holder ticket who knows if that ends up being effective one way or another. i don't think we're at a point -- when you're running against a president in office, democrats will want to win. whoever they think can win regardless of what his or her

background might be, that person can be a hd head. if avenatti can give a good speech, why not? >> the asymmetry seemed to be what led the 16, 17 republicans who ran against him and ultimately hillary clinton to lose. they tried running factually accurate ads. donald trump didn't say anything factually accurate. they gave speeches. they prepared for their debates. he didn't do any of those things and he won. >> i think this is a really bad idea. simply because donald trump ran as a celebrity and has become the worst president in history. doesn't mean the democrats should duplicate it. democrats are different than republicans. they do care about governance. they do care about some of the policy issues. i think looking at him, democrats would and should be insulted that he thinks he can come into their party at the last moment and run for president. >> it's not at the last moment. it's 2018. >> he's not been a political in his career, in his life. at the last moment, he hasn't been a democrat operative, he

hassant been a democratic candidate at any level. they better get a decent person. >> who is it? >> they haven't found one yet. they're going to go out looking. they have mayors, they have senators. i really haven't seen anyone who grabs you by the throat. >> i haven't met, ashley parker, anyone who feels good about their pool. people who work for bernie sanders -- i haven't melt a democrat who likes their odds. i'm not advocating for another person who hasn't worked in politics. i'm saying why not. >> there are a lot of things as we know running for president the democrats still value. understanding policy and someone who can withstand -- >> i've been to the movie. i can tell the democrats how it ends. care about national security, fair. >> the one thing i will say is compelling about him is democrats, whoever they nominate, will need to be someone who understands the trump psychology, who can go one on one with him and who isn't going to be dismissed by a silly

nickname or being called sleepy. michael avenatti has shown, keep in mind all those women came out during the campaign. they did not breakthrough. it was not until he began representing these women with his tactics to bring that issue to the forefront. does that qualify for him to be the nominee for the democrats as president? he has the show man ship the president has which is important going head to head with him. >> i think we live in a post qualification era. no offense, michael avenue nat. i up next, one year after charlottesville, the president wading into his favorite culture war again. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth...

are you in good hands? and i don't add up the years. but what i do count on is boost®. delicious boost® high protein nuritional drink now has 33% more protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals boost® high protein. be up for life.

boost® high protein. ancestrydna can open you to a world of new cultures to explore. with two times more detail than any other dna test... you can get a new taste of your heritage.

save 40% with our lowest price ever. today, life-changing technology from abbott is helping hunt them down at their source. because the faster we can identify new viruses, the faster we can get to stopping them. the most personal technology, is technology with the power to change your life. life. to the fullest.

several nfl players last night took a knee or raised their fist during the national anthem. one of those was malcolm jenkins of the philadelphia eagles, the team that had its visit to the white house in june cancelled by trump, who wasted no time this morning pouncing on one of his favorite talking points tweeting, quote, the nfl players are at it again, taking a knee when they should be standing proudly for the national anthem. find another way to protest. be happy, be cool, stand proudly for your national anthem or be suspended without pay. i want to read something else he said. he said most of them, the players, are unable to define what their outrage is about. that seems to me -- what does that seem like to you? >> it's just a lie. it's just more racism from the president of the united states.

i think what's really interesting, there was an article in the ringer where they interviewed aaron rodgers. he's like america's golden boy. even aaron rodgers says this is nonsense. this is nonsense. he said we didn't even come out for the pledge when i was behind brett favre. all of this is a creation of right-wing white nationalists who want to attack african-american players for being ungrateful. that's what the president wants to do, that's the reason he's talking about it and all the rest of the owners are capitulating. so it's obvious it's for political purposes, not for any practical financial reason. >> this is one step above laura ingraham saying it's the america that she has lost. the degree to which the republican party now turns on race, on xenophobia is one of the things we find horrifying. it's the only card they have to play. they still believe it's a base election, they still believe they have to turn out their people and the way to do it is

always going back to the race issue. it's not taxes, it's not trade, it's race. they go back to it again and again. >> i don't get the moral compass. where's paul ryan, where's mitch mcconnell. where are the guys who used to run as politicians with character. there are none. >> this goes a little bit to what we talked about earlier in the show that people have decided that the best way to deal with this president is to sort of stay quiet and to not pick fights. you make a fair point, there are a lot of people we look to, whether it was the policy arbiters or the moral barometers. there's a few of them, but often these are people who are leaving congress or who are retiring or who have some other reason to be outspoken but there's not that many of them. the president has also shown that you thought -- he took on lebron james the night there he was heading to ohio. he's taken on the nfl. a sport that is huge with his base. so far there have been no major

repercussions with him. if you're one of these politicians who is not a profile in courage and you look at the situation, you don't have much incentive to come out. >> it does seem, though, like when women have to go to the polls, there will be a -- these are cumulative. these attacks are racist. they are against people who are not sticking their toe into politics. they're exercising their first amendment rights to peaceful protests. >> and we're at the one-year anniversary of charlottesville. everyone remembers what the president said about charlottesville and what he didn't say which he didn't forcefully condemn it and he hasn't forcefully used his bully pulpit to condemn racism in our country. sunday there's going to be a protest of white supremacists right near the white house and he's said nothing about it. so he's judging about how professional athletes decide to protest but he says nothing about how kkk members or white supremacists decide to protest. that's an absence of the kind of leadership that we're used to seeing from people who were

president. >> and worse than anything nothing, he said good people on both sides. we'll be right back. it's pretty amazing out there. the world is full of more possibilities than ever before. and american express has your back every step of the way- whether it's the comfort of knowing help is just a call away with global assist. or getting financing to fund your business. no one has your back like american express. so where ever you go. we're right there with you. the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. don't live life without it.

you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed?m let's get someone to say it with a really low voice. carl? lowest price guaranteed. what about the world's lowest limbo stick? how low can you go? nice one, carl. hey i've got an idea. just say, badda book. badda boom. badda book. badda boom. nice. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com

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.

my thanks for phil rucker, jennifer rubin, jennifer johnson and ashley parker. that does it for our hour. i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now. hi, chuck. >> is it really friday? >> i hope so. i thought yesterday was a friday so i had a very long day. >> this has been a rough friday for you, then. enjoy your weekend, nicolle, thank you. if it's friday, the democratic leader is tangled up in blue. tonight, could a democratic wave at the ballot in november wash away nancy pelosi's power? we have exclusive new reporting on how the tide is turning for one of the biggest power players in capitol hill history. plus, chaos in kansas. the republican gubernatorial primary is still too close to call. we'll dig into the vote counting confusion and the vote