ring in the state. the searing grand jury statement issued wednesday roman catholic leaders tried to conceal the abuse of more than a thousand young girls and boys by more than 300 priests over the past 70 years. that wraps up this hour of msnbc. i'll see you at 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. time now for "deadline white house" with nicolle wallace. >> hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. donald trump may be obstructing justice in plain sight, admitting his decision to strip former cia director john brennan of his security clearances was retribution for his role in the russia investigation. the president saying, quote, i call it the rigged witch hunt. it is a sham and these people let it. so i think it's something that had to be done. the admission came in an interview with the "wall street journal" in which donald trump

seemingly acknowledged punishing the people who led the russia investigation. of course john brennan did not ever lead the russia investigation, but he was into trump and his campaign ties to russia. >> it was intelligence that the russian intelligence services were actively involved in this effort and having been involved in many counter intelligence cases in the past, i know what the russians try to do. they try to suborn individuals including u.s. persons to act on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly. and i was worried by a number of the contacts that the russians had with u.s. persons and so, therefore, by the time i left office on january 20th, i had unresolved questions in my mind as to whether or not the russians had been successful in getting u.s. persons involved in the campaign or not to work on their behalf. again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion. >> now, we know that the president is at a minimum a

subject in the obstruction of justice investigation. he claimed in last night's "wall street journal" interview that, quote, of course they say it's not an investigation. you know, in theory i'm not under investigation. i'm not a target. but regardless, i think that whole -- i call it the rigged witch hunt, is a sham. but what if donald trump is a target, a target who can't be indicted because robert mueller is believed to be operating under the d.o.j. policy that a president can't be indicted while in office? so the target in this case is never officially notified that he's a target, but he's a target all the same. it might offer the most plausible explanation yet for the president's lawyers' reluctance to agree to an interview. targets almost never do. we know that special counsel mueller is interviewing current and former white house aides to determine whether donald trump obstructed the investigation into russian meddling through his efforts to get jeff sessions to unrecuse himself.

and by firing jim comey, and by seeking to fire robert mueller. we also know that the special counsel is examining donald trump's tweets and public statements. so why, why would donald trump continue to walk up to the line and in the view of many experts cross the line into clear obstruction of justice by admitting he's firing people investigating russian interference? here to help us answer that question, the very best of the best, chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney and former senior fbi official. maximum well, former clinton campaign advisor now director of progressive programming for sirius xm, jonathan swan, national political reporter for axios. also back with us, frank figliuzzi, former fbi assistant director for counter intelligence and steve schmidt is back. steve, you're going to end up with one name by the end of this. let me start with you, chuck. take me through what i understand now may not be a distinction worth making, that the president is somehow comforted by the fact he's been told he's not a target, he may never officially cross becoming

one. >> i think i explained it well. it gets weedy. here it goes. someone in the scope of an investigation, we don't know if we're going to charge that investigation or not, but we're looking at her. a target is a likely defendant, but as you said, if you can't charge a sitting president, could he actually be a target? and the answer is maybe, maybe he'll be a target when he's no longer the president because one day he'll no longer be the president. so that's where this gets sticky. my view is that he's absolutely a subject and were he not the president of the united states, he would be a target. he would be a likely defendant. >> so what is the explanation for his conduct? if he is at best, for his legal liability, a subject and if he weren't the president more likely a target, why act like this? why continue to prosecute and punish and sort of try to stop an investigation into yourself? >> why act like this? that's a tough one.

some people just don't have any impulse control. that may be the case here. you know, here's the other weird argument that comes up all the time. stripping brennan of his security clearance or firing comey. on one hand, if benign, is within his authority as the president of the united states. on the other hand, and as a prosecutor, i think this hand sort of controls, looks like obstruction of justice. if not an actual crime, then certainly evidence of a crime. it's hard to know why people keep crossing that line. some people just can't help themselves. >> and if proving obstruction is about understanding his intent, we have it in his own words, his intent was to stop the people leading the russia investigation. these people let it, so i think it's something that had to be done. that is the intent, to stop an investigation into himself and his campaign. >> it sounds eerily like what he told lester holt. he fired jim comey because of the russia thing. i did this to john brennan because he was part of the

russia investigation, right? these are all bricks in a wall. this wall is getting a lot higher. >> a lot higher and a lot thicker. frank figliuzzi, you had a concise tweet. you think it is intent to obstruct. explain. >> i do, because obstruction as you all know and your viewers know, is about showing intent, mind-set, what was your purpose in conducting yourself this way. and so he's giving us essentially obstruction 101. and some may say, look, when you strip the clearance of a former cia director, you're not obstructing anything related to the collusion investigation. but in reality, the chilling effect that it has on active on-board investigators and intelligence officials is quite clear. if you cross me, if you continue in this vein, you lose your clearance. and, in fact, there are very recent reports that bruce orr, an active d.o.j. official, is being talked about in terms of

stripping his clearance. this is the next step, and it's rapid, of moving from former officials you don't like to current officials you don't like. >> steve schmidt, i spoke to two former senior intelligence officials from the bush era and i asked, when the iraq war went really south, was there anyone that was looked at or examined to possibly strip their clearances so they wouldn't have access to the things that were going on there? was there anyone that was so harsh a critic anyone considered taking away their clearances? and i was given a resounding no way. i want you to speak to the practice of stripping clearances as a punishment in donald trump's own words. and i also want to put something up for our viewers. these are all of the people that trump has now fired or threatened or punished who were involved in the russia investigation. james comey. andrew mccabe, former director of the fbi and acting director of the fbi. pete strzok, former senior fbi agent for counter intelligence.

sally yates, former acting attorney general. he threatened with firing jeff sessions, robert mueller and rod rosenstein, the d.a.g. revoke the security clearance of john brennan and threaten the security clearances of james clapper, our former colleague michael hayden, susan rice, and as frank just said bruce orr. what does that picture look like you to? >> it looks like a massive abuse of power to me, nicolle. this is a cornered president lashing out in all directions. one of things we know is that through the course of this investigation, each time he has act act petulant ly, he has made the situation worse for himself. of course the most damaging inflected wound of the entire presidency was his firing of director comey. so now in this instance, what we see is a president essentially saying that security clearances are not earned. it's not that they're bestowed on people who need them, but it's a reward for being loyal,

which explains, for example, why jared kushner and ivanka trump have high-level security clearances, where they would not have them in any other administration before or since. and so it is an act of retribution. it is an abuse of power by a president who shows his tendency towards his autocratic fetish with increasing frequency. >> i want to put something up for you, jonathan swan. so, the president explained to the "wall street journal" that the reason he didn't get around to spring brennan's clearances earlier was because last week was too hectic. asked about the white house decision to yank brennan's security clearance and to evaluate the clearances held by others, mr. trump said he was prepared to do it last week but it was too hectic. i saw him in pictures wiswingina golf club. he wasn't busy. >> it's an absurd explanation. >> so what's going on?

>> in order for me to say what was going on, i would have to have direct knowledge of why they put that out, which i don't have, but it looks an awful lot like if you just piece it together, they had -- the first cut at this, they accidentally put the date on that document that showed that it was drafted i think like june 26. i mean, they were sitting on this thing, so why now, why put it out now? they have obviously been having a pretty bad week in the press with the omarosa tape, so, again, i don't have direct knowledge that that's why they put it out, but -- >> you covered the flattening of crises. by that i mean a reality tour -- reality star book tour is no way graver. explain how one is as dramatic as the other. >> it's remiss. everything is reactive. there's not a great deal of forward planning. largely that's because trump

doesn't think long term. he deals with things on a day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute basis, completely consumed by the news cycle. so that basically makes long-term planning almost impossible, or futile -- >> what does he have other than what he sees on cable tv? >> he does read or at least scan the physical newspapers. "the new york times," washington times, new york post. he engages with the news outlets because they know he's going to see it in the morning. if he sees something that enrages him, their day is going to be worse. otherwise you wouldn't have the level of engagement with these outlets. there is a whole lot of time unaccounted for. as i reported -- >> so we begin, not hectic. >> his first meeting of the day is 11:00 a.m. >> what does he do? >> it's called as i reported kp executive time. it's from 8:00 to 11:00. reince priebus used to in

trump's mind overschedule him. he would have meet frings from 0 a.m. -- he trimmed this back when kelly took over. he's watching tv, making phone calls, tweeting. >> lovely. >> intelligence briefing around 11:00, you know, and he'll often be in there until 4:00. back to the residence. there is this unaccounted for time when he's on the phone. frankly no one has any visibility about who he is talking to or very little visibility, i should say. sometimes they have visibility. >> tell me about the direct line between the president and sarah huckabee sanders. they reported the dni dan coats had no idea that brennan's security clearance was going to be stripped. brennan told me in an interview yesterday that gina haspel, the current cia director did not call him and give him a heads up. what are the president's contacts like? how many staff members is he talking to, and are all the orders direct? >> it's really -- depends on the situation, so it doesn't

surprise me dan coats was out of the loop. he and trump, this is not a particularly close relationship and i think as we saw on stage when he was, you know, befuddled they invited vladimir putin later in the year. >> skeptical. >> the president relies heavily on two people, john bolton and mike pompeo. he has a very active relationship with sarah huckabee sanders, he'll sit in the private dining room beside the oval office and watch her every day like a theater critic and take -- if she makes a mistake, he'll let her know about it. >> that explains a lot. let me read you some of brennan's op-ed from this morning. director brennan writes, by issuing such a statement, mr. trump is not only -- this about his call on the russians to hack the e-mails and to release them, hillary clinton's e-mails on the campaign he worked. by issuing such a statement he was not only encouraging a

foreign nation to collect intelligence on a united states citizen, but also openly authorizing his followers against his political opponents. such a public claire i don't know call certainly makes one wonder what mr. trump privately encouraged his advisors to do -- i want to ask you what that looks like. i want to ask you what that sounds like now. what were you up against in hindsight? >> it was a drip, drip, drip every day. so every morning you woke up not knowing what was going to be in the podesta e-mails. they released around 2000 e-mails every single day up until the election. all of a sudden on the election day they stopped. why is that? that was an interesting fact particularly in retrospect. so it was essentially what they're dealing with now in the white house in terms of omarosa and the tapes. they don't know what's going to come out so you're on a heightened sense of alert. but when he said -- i remember where i was standing. i was in the bowels of the convention center during the convention when he looked at the camera and said, russia, if you're listening, find hillary clinton's e-mails.

i remember jumping up and saying, did he just ask a foreign government to hack us? can he do that? right? and i think that it was clear to us that he was encouraging an attack on americans. it didn't seem like -- it seemed that it was something that was outside of what we had normally come to expect in terms of the political election process. >> it sure was. let me ask you, so now if we believe chris christie and rudy giuliani and donald trump that collusion is not a crime, let's give them that and say that's collusion, what other pieces need to be connected to have a complete circuit for a conspiracy? >> right. so collusion is a crime. we call it conspiracy. what else do you need? you need intent. what's fascinating to me, nicolle, is if you look at that recent indictment that the mueller team issued of the russian military officials to her point, the timing of the requests for the release and the releases themselves all seem to be happening on purpose, not

coincidentally, at the direction of either the president or people who worked for him. which is astonishing, and i don't use that word lightly. can i make one other point? >> please. >> going back a little bit to what jonathan was saying, if the president really thought that john brennan was a national security threat, that our national security was threatened by the fact that he had a security clearance, you would expect that when he made that realization, when he came to that point, that's when you revoke it. you don't wait, no matter how busy you are and you work for president bush, you don't wait if you think there is a threat to national security. you take that action at that time. >> but nobody thinks that he thinks john brennan was a national security -- even the president admitted this was punishment for somebody who started the russia investigation. >> he's not a threat, he's a national treasure. but if you really believe that as he claims to, that's when you act, not a week or two later. >> let me follow-up with you, frank. here's another lie, another lie told in the context of a

punishment or retribution for someone whose conduct you don't like, what is brennan's conduct? raising questions about things like the helsinki summit where donald trump stands next to vladimir putin and says, oh, no, why wouldn't i believe vladimir putin. what does that look like inside an investigation? >> so, what the mueller team is looking at here is all of that, whether he's really punishing someone not because he doesn't like what that person is saying, but even more so because he doesn't like why he's saying it. he doesn't like what john brennan knows and that knowledge and cutting off john brennan's access so he never again has access to such information is all about the attempt to obstruct, make this go away. silence people who know too much. john brennan was in the early days of this. he understands, and he see the vehement vwith which he makes e fault i can declare if i have

statements. john brennan calm up through the ranks as an intelligence analyst. he doesn't make these statements lightly. he's all about the facts. and trump knows that brennan knows too much. if you're on mueller's team, you're seeing this through that lens. silencing someone who knows too much, it goes toward the intent to obstruct. >> all right. when we come back, donald trump ready to take a subpoena fight all the way to the u.s. supreme court to avoid testifying in the mueller investigation. also ahead, omarosa doubles down on the most explosive claim she's made so far. and she's got more tapes. and one of our favorite friends, remember, is one of highs dear est friends, the legendary aretha franklin. ♪ ♪ you make me feel like a natural woman ♪ ♪ when my soul was in the lost and found ♪ ♪ so you have, your headphones,

chair, new laptop with free 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. like these for only a 25 cents at office depot officemax.

your insurance rates a scratch so smallr you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's.

is the president now prepared to take even more drastic steps to protect himself from robert mueller? his legal team seems up for it. from robert costa in the washington post, trump's lawyers are preparing to oppose a potential subpoena from mueller for a trump sit down by drafting a rebuttal that could send off a dramatic fight in federal court. we could move to quash a subpoena, giuliani said in an interview, and we're pretty much finished with a memorandum proposing a subpoena. they are ready to argue it before the supreme court if it ever got there. and as team trump seemingly takes on water, its members are

increasingly desperate, grabbing for anything to hang onto. if the president's checked in on one of his very favorite people on one of his very favorite networks, it's a good bet he has, it's possible he got a dose of hard truth thank to our friend shep smith. >> much of giuliani's attack on brennan involved the dossier compiled by the former british spy christopher steele. that the administration has repeatedly asserted was what began the russia investigation. it was not. the russia investigation began after the former trump policy advisor george papadopoulos told an australian diplomat that the russians had dirt on his then political opponent hillary clinton. that information was passed on to intelligence officials. >> ouch. jonathan swan, they don't like cold pricklys from fox news. >> carved out -- >> truth? >> certainly a contrast to their late night programming for sure.

>> he seemed to dismantle one of rudy giuliani's favorite myths that he tells the trump base, that somehow there was any -- former justice department officials have told me that the way to call trump's bluff early on would have been to say, sure, shine a light on the fisa'ly kalgs. release the whole darn thing. this is one of the most incorruptible parts of the system. >> having worked for director mueller irk tell you how much work and time and attention -- >> it's a pain in the neck. >> is that an understatement. >> it breaks nodding, too. >> if you used a different word, it would be an understatement. that said, there is a visceral reaction to releasing fisa materials. and so while i think you're right, politically that should have, would have put an end to the debate, the department of justice and fbi does not like to put that stuff out there. but i think it does answer the question conclusively. >> let me ask you about this idea of a subpoena fight. if robert mueller wants to subpoena the president, i'm told that if it's a good faith effort

to understand what was on the president's mind, his intent in all of this conduct, that just from observing rod rosenstein's conduct so far in this investigation, that that would likely end up on his desk, do you think he would sign it? >> i think he would sign it. i mean, there are some other calculations that have to go into it whether you would win that inevitable battle in the supreme court. i think he would win that inevitable battle in the supreme court. i think the subpoena would stand and that the president would have to comply with it. >> and, frank, why would robert mueller think he needed this interview? why go to the extraordinary step of issuing a subpoena in a criminal investigation for the president? >> well, this is an interesting question, right? i personally believe that it's not necessary for his case, for a legal case. it's always nice when you're -- particularly when you're trying to get inside someone's head to establish intent to obstruct, it's nice to have him make statements of interest, statements contrary to public

statements he's already made. so that in itself is worth something. but really, this is the battle for public perception because if the president can get away and say, look, they never got my opinion, they never got my answers to questions, they never sat me down, he kind of wins that argument. and mueller is left there saying, gees, i should have gotten his 2 cents just to win hearts and minds of the public. i think that's what this is about. i think we're moving toward potential articles of impeachment with a conclusion and report from mueller. and i think it's helpful for mueller to say, i sat him down and i asked questions and here's what he said. >> let me push back with all of the affection and high esteem i have for you, frank figliuzzi. 70% of the american people think the president should testify before robert mueller. so robert mueller is winning the fight for hearts and minds in that the public thinks the president, whether they're with him or against him, they think he should answer questions from robert mueller. >> which means that they think mueller should push and sit him down and get the answers to

questions. so it's a two-edged sword. what i find interesting is whether or not, if there is a subpoena to the president to get him before a grand jury to answer questions, who that helps and who that hurts, because if you're looking at impeachment proceedings and mueller loses the argument for a subpoena, you could argue that the only solution, the only outlet to address this misconduct is impeachment. and that would solidify things, perhaps in favor of impeachment. >> steve, i want your thought on what frank has just said and what chuck said. i want to read you more from robert costa reporting in the washington post of the giuliani said memorandum b-- members of trump's team had conversations related to the investigation. he would have a big role and would assert presidential privilege. to say more decline those discussions, officials say flood has cautioned trump and others about the unpredictability of a subpoena fight that could be decided by the supreme court.

such a case would be unprecedented. i guess my question for you is how does emmet flood put the tooth paste back in the tube? donald trump has been potentially obstructing justice for, i don't know what, 13 months. he's had dozens of white house aides testify before special counsel robert mueller. i think, you know, some of his family has been before, jared and ivanka have been before. what does emmet flood think he can do now? >> look, nicolle, i think we're moving very quickly towards an hour where we're going to test the premise in this country whether the president of the united states is above the law or not. it's very clear that we're heading towards a constitutional crisis that this will head towards the supreme court. and we know that rudy giuliani, when he goes out and speaks, is not acting as the president's attorney, but as the president's mouth piece. and really what he's indicating is that this president, this administration will burn down everything. there is no institution sacred enough to be held back from attack to try to save the

president in this political fight that's come. and that's what this is all about. there's a looming constitutional crisis and our system is going to be sorely tested in the months ahead. >> steve, do you buy this argument that they make over and over again that it's mission accomplished that they succeeded in bringing robert mueller down a notch? i think the other side of that is revealed on the polling data this week, which is 60% of americans think the investigation is important. more than 55% of americans think trump is trying to obstruct or end the investigation. 70% of americans, as i said to frank, think the president should testify before robert mueller. i mean, it may be working with the hardened base which as the president said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and they wouldn't go anywhere. he is not winning the hearts and minds of the people he's going to need to stand for reelection. >> no, he's pursuing the only strategy he can pursue, which is to incite his base. as he incites that base, it

grows smaller. the smaller base is a harder more intense one. if you go back to inauguration day, trump has less support today than he did then. his base is smaller. the republican party is smaller. but it is more faithful and more intense in its loyalty to trump. and 40% of the country has surrendered their intellectual sovereignty to donald trump. there is for them no such thing as objective truth any more. what is true is what the leader says is true. what the leader believes is true. and trump has exercised that power and 40% of the country has submitted themselves to it. it's extraordinary and frightening to see, but thank goodness not a majority of the country. in fact, it's not even close to being a majority of the country. >> they have surrendered their intellectual sovereignty. i haven't heard that one before, and i feel like i'm going it hear it again. chuck rosenberg, thank you for spending so much of the hour with us. we're grateful to you.

omarosa goes down on a claim, it could tie donald trump to russian efforts to influence the election. hopes you drive safely. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. 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? when it comes to strong bones, are you on the right path? we have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture, so with our doctors we chose prolia® to help make our bones stronger.

only prolia® helps strengthen bones by stopping cells that damage them with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems, as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections, which could need hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. if your bones aren't getting stronger isn't it time for a new direction? why wait? ask your doctor about prolia. you might or joints.hing for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials

to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

i am not going anywhere. i'm not going to be bullied. i'm not intimidated and i'm going to go toe to toe with him. everything he throws at me, believe me, my tapes are much better than theirs. >> you're going to release more tapes? >> if i need to. i'll do what i have to do to protect myself. >> how are you going to determine whether you need to? >> we'll see. he's threatening to get me arrested. he's tried to intimidate my publisher, trying to intame dim me. donald trump has met his match. >> i would be scared. omarosa said she's determined to beat him at his own game, pressing one of the top triggers, the mueller investigation, she doubled down on one of his threats. >> did donald trump know about those e-mails before they came out? >> absolutely. >> he knew about them? >> yes. >> he knew what was coming out before wikileaks released themd?

>> yes. >> you have proof? >> i can't talk about the things i talked with them. i can't talk about the things i submitted to them but i want you to know that i will fully continue to cooperate with this investigation. >> and you stand by what you said on our air a few days ago isn't that >> i have been able to verify every single thing i put in the book. i verified everything i've stated and every single time the trump people challenged me, i bring the receipts. >> a fellow over at fox news said you have outsmarted of the president. do you agree? >> hey, it's the art of the deal. >> the panel is still here including chuck rosenberg who i convinced to stay and talk about omarosa with me. now, i remember the "fire and fury" book tour. i'm sure michael wolff wasn't a cooperating witness in the mueller investigation, but after that book came out, people like steve bannon were suddenly of interest because he said, oh, money laundering, it's a weissmann thing, the prosecutor, you go right through manafort to jared and that's how you bleep

trump. is it possible something omarosa says on her book tour could pique the interest and answer something she's talking about on our air? >> sure, she has to be able to prove it. you can't just say stuff, you have to be able to back it up. what's interesting to me, nicolle, she claims to be cooperating. when i was a prosecutor, someone was cooperating with me, the first thing i would do, the first thing, would be to ask them to talk only to me and to my investigators and not on national television. the notion of cooperating means, this sounds kind of silly, you're cooperating. you're doing what the prosecuteders ask you to do. this does not sound like a cooperator to me. this sounds like somebody, i'm sorry to say this, who is selling books. >> let me just -- it makes me think of michael cohen. he's suddenly quiet. is he acting this week right now like a potentially cooperating witness? >> you bet he is. now, he's situated differently, of course, because he might end up being a defendant rather than just the witness. but right, the silence you hear from him is deafening.

the reason you're hearing silence i think is because he's cooperating. he was asked the same thing. tell us the truth and don't talk to anyone else. and guess what? he's not talking to anyone else. i think it's a very good guess. >> let me ask you to follow-up on that, frank figliuzzi. if you just look at these people in the president's orbit, they all have something potentially to help robert mueller with some part of his investigation. do you think that it's possible that omarosa is sort of where that book "fire and fury" was at this point in the book tour where she's dangling things out there in hopes to be called? she seems to hedge a little bit. if called i will tell them what i know. again, contrast it as chuck did, to the silence of michael cohen. >> trump is on the money here. someone who is simply complying and answering questions versus someone who is fully on board and cooperating. she isn't fully on board or she wouldn't be talking and selling books. many times i've brought in sources into the office and said, look, if you're on board,

here's how it's going to work. you're not out there doing your own thing. you're doing our thing. and we're here to help you and you're here to help us. but i think one of the things that strikes home here is what mueller is up against in people who are being offered and likely people who are accepted 15 grand a month to stay quiet, that's a pretty darn good incentive to not cooperate. and i think that goes toward why we're not seeing even more people, more formers come out and cooperate is because they are literally being paid off. it goes to an even larger mess in the white house, which as a counter intelligence guy scares the heck out of me. we've got people being paid hush money. we have people who are being told to sign ndas. we have people who are upset with the boss, tape recording the boss, getting in the situation room with recording devices. this is a ripe environment for foreign intelligence services to come in and pick off people who are willing to tape record, who are bitter, and eager for money. >> it is stunning.

having worked in the white house, the idea that anyone would bring in any recording device into the situation room is stunning. it was an honor system, that we all left them outside. i want to ask you about some reporting in vanity fair that omarosa is crippling the white house and ask you if you're hearing anything along these lines. vanity fair reporting in a white house already crippled by back stabbing and paranoia, use of omarosa's tapes landed like a bomb effect. ly paralyzing proceedings. worse, tapes deepened another fear among trump staffers omarosa is not the only one who secretly recorded conversations. i believe "the new york times" has also reported there are more tapes. what do you make of this culture of vindictiveness and everyone -- sarah palin talked about reporters with gotcha questions. these are colleagues with gotcha recordings. >> i would say omarosa is her own entity, like there is no one even approaching omarosa in that white house. i mean, she would -- they tried to block her from the oval.

she would -- she tried to have her wedding photographs, she brought a bridal party to the west wing. she didn't care about the secret service. she really was a different category. people are paranoid she was taping them in private conversations, you know, who knows what they said about their colleagues. it's more just the petty sort of oh, maybe i said something bad about a colleague. >> maybe they said john mccain would be dead soon. >> i don't think it's paralyzed the white house. i don't think anything really could at this point. they deal with this stuff day in, day out. >> you reported on their leaks. they leak anyway. >> the main reason i wanted to separate it out. the biggest cultural problem in this white house, if you enter a room, particularly the senior staff meeting with john kelly, 20 people in that room, you're talking every word you say, you know there's a 30/70 chance someone will leak it. >> it doesn't matter if it's recorded or not, it gets out? >> it doesn't have to be a large

room. it can be a senior room. you can't trust your colleagues they aren't going to leak. >> let me play the sound about hush money. she wasn't the only person offered a monthly rate of 15,000 a month. let's listen. >> listen obviously with "the new york times" article and stuff, you know, it's -- >> what's "the new york times" article? >> the one that, the one that -- it was with maggie haberman, they wrote about you. it sounded a little like obviously there is something that got out. clearly if you come on the campaign, we can't have -- we got to -- oh, no. >> the only thing we have to consider when we're talking salary as far as the campaign is concerned is that as you know, everything is public. and all the money that we raise in the paid salaries is directly from donors, small dollar donors for the most part.

so i know you were making 179 at the white house, and i think we can work something out where we keep you right along those lines, specifically i haven't added up the numbers, but we're talking like 15k a month. let me see what that adds up to. yeah, that's 180,000. does that sound like a fair deal for you? in terms of your position specifically, i really feel like your position was required you to be able to be flexible in terms of where you are. sometimes, you know, come to new york for occasional meetings, but i would love if you could, you know, occasionally go do speaking engagements and that sort of thing for us, i think you would be awesome for that. so it doesn't really matter where you are. if you're comfortable staying in d.c., then, you know, you're more than happy to have you -- >> steve schmidt, you and i worked on a lot of campaigns. i was never offered $15,000 a

month to not talk to maggie haberman, stay in d.c., do a couple speeches. doesn't sound like she was asked to do much more than that, did it? >> no, it's great work, though, if you can get it. it couldn't be any shadier. it's hush money obviously. and, look, the bottom line here, though, is why was omarosa ever in the white house in the first place? why didn't she have a west wing job? why are there vape pen parties and vodka parties in the west wing around an office where life and death decisions get made every day? the vile nature of this contemptible crew that inhabits the spaces that teddy roosevelt and f.d.r. and john kennedy and ronald reagan worked in is a national tragedy. there are no other words for it. >> i'm going to put you on the spot. why? do you have an answer? >> why what?

>> why the people donald trump brought into the white house? >> do you think there was a que of people with political experience lining up to work for donald trump? you know there wasn't. >> but how did they get in? how did these people have -- >> omarosa specifically it was because donald trump, it seems like he was scared of her in some way, shape or form. >> so how does he stand up to vladimir putin? i guess he doesn't. he's scared of omarosa but we should trust him with our national security? >> they had hired zero african americans at the top level of the white house. zero. and now at the top level there are zero at her level. so, you know -- >> and black people don't want to work for the nazis or people that say nazis are fine people. >> she definitely like -- the other problem with omarosa which i've heard from people who were trying to get jobs in that white house, she was acting as a gate keeper basically blocking a lot of frankly african-american people who actually -- conservatives who were

interested. >> there were a lot of black conservatives that wanted to work in the white house. i've seen them say things like that, they wanted to work in the white house and do more to reach out into the african-american community, but she was blocked out by omarosa she want it had to herself. she was a completely unqualified person arriving in this administration. we know her from reality television. that is not technically true. >> i'm not saying she's disqualified -- >> absolutely agree, 100%. jared and ivanka i would say have less experience than omarosa, for example. >> let me ask you about hush money. is it illegal to pay a former white house staffer hush money? >> again, it goes to intent. if they're paying her hush money so she doesn't talk to mueller or if she does talk to maller, she lies to mueller, absolutely illegal. if they're doing if for some other reason, more benign reason -- >> what benign reason is there to pay hush money? >> let's say she's making this

up. let's say she has some information about lara trump, that lara trump doesn't want out there so they find her a job and say do this and this, but don't talk any more about that stuff that happened between us. it's more benign. i don't think that's a crime. i could see that. once you call it -- >> it's still unprecedented. >> it's unprecedented. once you call it hush money, it sounds criminal. if they're paying her because they want her to obstruct an investigation, it's a crime. >> all right. frank figliuzzi and chuck rosenberg, thank you for joining us on a day where we taurlked about obstruction of justice, robert mueller and omarosa. when we come back, remembering a true legend. ♪ ♪ what you want, i got it ♪ what you need, you know i got it ♪ ♪ call on us ♪

♪

with the new chase ink business unlimited card i get unlimited 1.5% cash back. it's so simple, i don't even have to think about it. so i think about mouthfeel.

introducing chase ink business unlimited with unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase. ♪ my country 'tis of thee ♪ sweet land of liberty ♪ of thee i sing ♪ land where my father died ♪ land of the pilgrims' pride ♪ from every, every mountainside ♪ ♪ let freedom, freedom ring

>> wow. a better time, a better president, and a legend. the queen of soul at the inauguration of president barack obama. aretha franklin died earlier today at the age of 76, a musical legend. the singer and political activist won 18 grammys and touched the lives of millions. president obama once said american history wells up when aretha sings. the rev al sharpton joins us now, host of "politics nation" here on msnbc and a friend of franklin's. what are you missing most today? >> i think i miss her presence. not only was she the most successful female vocalist of all time, she had a regal presence about her. there was something about aretha franklin that made people kind of perk up. >> what did she mean to president obama? >> i think she meant to him the

authenticity of this struggle that got him there. her father was a civil rights leader with dr. king. she helped dr. king in her youth. she went on tour for dr. king to raise money because his money donors had dried up because he came out against the war in vietnam. so i think she embodied for president obama the journey that brought him to the white house. as he sat there listening to her in that kind of church rhythm that she never would lose, he was probably thinking about the journey that people took that made him possible. >> i ask you that because he put out a beautiful statement today. this is from the obamas. america has no royalty, but we do have a chance to earn something more enduring. born in memphis and raised in detroit, aretha franklin grew up performing gospel songs in her father's congregation. for more than six decades since, every time she sang, we were all graced with a glimpse of the divine. through her compositions an

unmatched musicianship, aretha helped define the american experience. in her voice, we could feel our history, all of it. and in every shade our power and pain, our darkness and our light, our quest for redemption and hard-won respect. she helped us feel more connected to each other, more hopeful, more human, an sometimes she just helped us forget about everything else and dance. god, i miss him too. what did he mean to her? >> i think he meant to her the fulfillment of the dreams of her father and those as she grew up under dr. king and the generation before her and the fulfillment of those of us that were a little younger. i was about 13, 14 years younger. i remember she came to this studio to do "politics nation," my show, and as i said i really want her to do my show because she didn't like to do a lot of interviews. she called back herself and she said i'm going to do it. i said i'll get a crew, where can we do it on whatever day.

she said i'm coming to the studio. i want the people at 30 rock to know i'm with the movement. she came and sat at this table and talked about what dr. king meant and her father. she talked about president obama, it was during the obama era. i'm going to play the interview on my show sunday morning. >> what did it mean to both of them for her to perform at his inauguration? >> i think it was the fulfillment of a journey for her. she told me she thought of her father and the marches and she thought of the people that went to jail and that had been water hosed down in birmingham when she was up there singing. she had on her best church sunday go to meeting hat on. she was always aretha. i think for him it was his way of saying thank you to those who paid the price that made him possible. he wanted people to understand that he understood he didn't get there by himself. >> there's nothing in this climate that isn't political, but she didn't shy away. >> right. >> from social justice, from the

sorts of -- from her history, from the fights going on. what are you thinking about today? >> i'm thinking about the fact that she was my first feminist icon. i think as a little girl hearing "respect" and internalizing that message even without understanding what she was saying. you sort of perked your chest up a little higher and you had more confidence as a small little girl, particularly as a black girl when you don't have a lot of examples outside of you, you know, to make you feel proud. aretha represented, you know, a strong black woman and, you know, i have my mother as an example and i think that she also was an example for me. but i also would say this. she's somebody that is an example for other artists because in this particular moment, art is a tool to speak back to injustice, and so she did -- she led pby example and artists today can lead by example. >> donald trump said something

weird, she worked for me. >> i assume he means, again this is a pure assumption, played at one of his casinos, something like that. that's my guess. >> do you know what he meant? >> he probably meant worked for one of his casinos, but i thought the irony of, in all due respect to our grieving, i thought it was ironic here's a man that called a black woman a dog this week that's now sending out something about a woman whose hit song was about respect. >> maybe it should be the new theme song. >> maybe. we're going to sneak in a break. the rev even makes me laugh even on a sad day and sad occasion. we will be right back. ♪ you make me feel like a -- i feel like -- i feel like -- you make me feel ♪

♪ you make me ♪ you make me feel the line between work and life hasn't just blurred. it's gone. that's why you need someone behind you. not just a card. an entire support system. whether visiting the airport lounge to catch up on what's really important. or even using those hard-earned points to squeeze in a little family time. no one has your back like american express.

so no matter where you're going... we're right there with you. the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. don't live life without it.

it was always our singular focus, a distinct determination. to do whatever it takes, use every possible resource. to fight cancer. and never lose sight of the patients we're fighting for. our cancer treatment specialists share the same vision. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. specialists focused on treating cancer. using advanced technologies. and more precise treatments than before. working as hard as we can- doing all that we can- for everyone who walks through our doors. this is cancer treatment centers of america. and these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. treating cancer isn't one thing we do. it's the only thing we do. expert medicine works here.

learn more at cancercenter.com cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now. my thanks to the r emmiev, zerlina, jonathan and steve. "mtp daily" starts right now with katy tur. >> if it's thursday, as the queen of soul would say, who's zooming who. tonight, here we go again. why it seems president trump is once again admitting to obstruction of justice, this time over security clearances. >> look, i thought it was just kind of a banana republic kind of thing. >> plus, has the white house chain of command devolved into a chain of foolishness? >> donald trump has met his match. >> and the war on the free press.