nicolle wallace starts now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. we're juggling breaking news in the special counsel investigation this afternoon. waiting on two potentially explosive reports from the mueller team today. but first, did white house counsel don mcgahn, who reportedly spent upwards of 30 hours testifying before the special counsel provide a road map detail exactly when and how donald trump obstructed justice? nbc news has learned that white house chief of staff john kelly, who is reportedly on his way out of that job, was questioned about news accounts that revealed the president wanted mueller fired. the report suggests the special counsel is targeting his questions to witnesses around known flashpoints in the obstruction inquiry. the bombshell development here is that the white house lost a bid to protect all those conversations between the president and his chief of staff. white house lawyer emmett flood is known for his aggressive use of executive privilege. today's reporting suggests that mueller in this instance got his

way and kelly answered some questions about the president's conduct. it's unclear which of these developments triggered the president's tiride this morning but he unleashed a harsh batch of attacks on mueller, his investigators and his political rivals. here are some of the highlights. will robert mueller's big-time conflicts of interest be listed at the much to his republicans only report? will andrew weisman's horrible and vicious prosecutorial past be listed in the report. will the scathing report written by james comey, by the man who n charge of the case, rod rosenstein who also signed the fisa warrant, a big part of it? it's worth noting the fleft united states of america smears two former fbi directors and his own deputy attorney general in just two short tweets. joining us to discuss it all from the white house, nbc's kristen welker whose byline is on that story we started with. also chuck rosenberg, a former

u.s. attorney and senior fbi official. former u.s. attorney joyce vance, phil rucker for "the washington post," and john heilemann is here. nbc news and msnbc national affairs analyst. kristen, take us through what you're reporting this hour. >> according to our sources, special counsel robert mueller wanted to speak with chief of staff john kelly about a conversation he allegedly witnessed between then-white house counsel don mcgahn and wh trump asked mcgahn to refute a march 7th story that we saw in "the new york times" which essentially said that he was directed by president trump to fire mueller. now, of course, that never happened. he was talked out of it. but that was really the crux of it. this is the first time that we're getting a sense of what chief of staff john kelly was asked about when he answered questions to the special counsel. we're also told it was a narrow set of questions he was asked

during that interview. and the timing couldn't be more critical. it comes as we just reported a few hours ago, nicolle, that john kelly is widely expected to be on his way out in the days ahead. that's according to four different sources. and that comes on the heels of a number of clashes that kelly has had with people here within the administration, with the president himself, with the national security adviser john bolton and even with the first lady's team. of course, some of those clashes have spilled out into the open. we saw that on the case of immigration. but again, we are learning more, not only about the fact that more people have been asked to answer questions by the special counsel, another indication of just how far reaching that investigation is and again, critical that it's coming on the heels of learning that kelly is likely on his way out, nicolle. >> phil rucker, one source close to this west wing staff suggested to me that kelly's allies may be putting out this information about kelly participating in the mueller

probe to sort of obscure or fog up the picture of his imminent departure and in the view of his allies really a humiliation at the hands of the president and his family who are trying to oust him. >> yeah, that may be, nicolle. i'm not sure. i don't have reporting to match that. but, clearly, this is a bit of an embarrassment here for john kelly because, remember, it was only a few months ago when kelly announced at a staff meeting at the white house that the president had asked him to stay on as the chief of staff, and he said he was going to be there all the way through the 2020 re-election campaign. that was an announcement that kelly made internally inside the white house knowing, of course, that it would leak to the press very quickly but to try to douse speculation in washington that he was on the outs with trump and that he would be leaving bup fast forward only a few months and now all signs point to him leaving. that's the signals we're hearing, at least from the white house at this hour. >> you can almost orchestrate it. first the leak. then the tweet.

then there's the awkward leaving with your box of framed pictures photo. but let me go to chuck and joyce because everything i know about obstruction of justice i learned from the two of you. i understand it all centers around what the suspect's intent was. and i wonder -- kristen reported on some public reporting about what kelly witnessed and something that we know is a known flashpoint in the obstruction of justice investigation that the president wanted to fire the man running the investigation into himself. let me read something from that original reporting. "the new york times" reporting in march on don mcgahn's grontation with trump. white house staff secretary rob porter told mcgahn that the president wanted him to release a statement saying that the story was not true. that was the story recounting the president's desire to fire mueller. porter told mcgahn the president suggested he might get rid of mcgahn if he chose not to challenge the article, the people briefed on the

conversation said. mcgahn did not publicly deny the article and the president later confronted nim the oval office in front of the white house chief of staff john kelly, according to the people. is that the kind of thing if you are robert mueller, chuck rosenbe rosenberg, you want to know more about? >> oh, you bet, nicolle. here's why. i think the story would have been astonishing if we had leadershiped mueller did not talk to john kelly. a bank is robbed. you don't took two tellers and call it a day. you talk to everybody in the bank, everybody in the lobby, everybody in the parking lot. everybody behind a teller station. john kelly was either at these meetings or talked to people who went to these meetings. as you pointed out, and as joyce knows well, moving intent is always the hardest to do. how do you prove intent? by gathering all the data of all the discussions of all of the attempts to get rid of the prosecutors and to sort of make the department of justice bend to your will and stand down. i would have been astonished if

they didn't talk to john kelly. >> joyce, it's also a clear sign that even the white house legal strategy largely quarterbacked by emmett flood isn't fool-proof. isn't rock solid. that even exerting executive privilege over conversations between a president and his chief of staff doesn't then sort of free or excuse the chief of staff from providing testimony about a flash point like this. is that to be expected? do you think there are a lot of staffers who have had to go ahead and tell robert mueller what they know about specific narrow incidents like this that we know to be under scrutiny? >> absolutely. and for all of the reasons that chuck identifies. if you are the prosecutors here, you leave no stone unturned because it's so very difficult to prove what's going on inside of someone's head which is what prosecutors have to do when they're looking at corrupt motive. so anyone who is around for a conversation or, as chuck says, anyone who is in the parking lot and could have observed people's

characteristics as they walked out, they'll be very, very thorough. it's interesting, as you pointed out in starting that this particular piece of testimony has leaked out now. i wouldn't be surprised if mueller wants to talk with kelly about additional matters. it seems unlikely that this is the singular time that kelly's information could be of interest. >> that would be two chiefs of staff that we know have sat before robert mueller. and donald trump treats people like bleep home countries. he doesn't treat people -- >> like crap would be one way. we can say -- we can certainly say crap on tv. >> he treats people so badly, there are public reports about jeff sessions crying or being near tears. rod rosenstein being near tears. john kelly reportedly over the labor day holiday screamed at in a way he's never been screamed at. whatever your politics, these are grown men being treated abusively by the president they

serve. >> i'll tell you a couple things that i'm listening to joyce and chuck talk about this. i'm thinking about my career as a reporter. i've done some books. you're familiar with that work. when you're trying to do reconstructive history if you're writing narrative nongiks things that happened in a presidential campaign, you want to talk on any given thing, any event, any scene you're trying to write. you want to talk to everybody in the room. get notes, e-mails sent before, after the meeting, anything on audio anybody has and try to talk to anyone because the reality is people's memories are terrible. also the -- even people being honest with you remember things differently. on top of that, then there are people who lie. in this white house, people who lie a lot. so if you are trying to get to the truth, which is what a reporter does in this situation and what somebody like bob mueller and his team are trying to do, of course you'll talk to everybody and trying to scoop up as much of that available evidence. when i worked on these books, i

had the subpoena power. what you have is people's desire to tell the truth, to reconstruct history accurately but also the thing you're talking about which in a lot of case you have people who want to settle scores. people who are angry at the boss or angry at a co-worker. and all of those things just letting that -- all that stuff is stuff that you use to try to get not their version of events but the the truth of what happened. and donald trump is the most idiotic, moronic, dramatic persona because he's left a trail of people with grievances, all of whom might want to tell the -- either want to tell the truth to try to indemnify themselves or want to settle scores. you don't want the score settlers. but if you talk to them all and triangulate against them all and the written and oral record if there is one, you can get something close to what happened. and that's exactly what mueller and his team are doing. >> chuck, let me come back to you on that. it would appear through cohen's

guilty plea, through manafort's conduct learning that his cooperation agreement was torn up, that people in their effort to be loyal to trump, what they do is lie. and that when trump has been disloyal, when they feel liberated from the trump family, as your former boss jim comey described them like a mob family, they tell the truth to robert mueller. is that a pattern that a prosecutor knows how to use to his advantage to eke out the truth when a potential witness is ready to share it? >> it is. to john's point and to your question, this concept of triangulation is critically important. people have all sorts of reasons for telling the truth. they have all sorts of reasons for lying. so the more people you talk to, the closer you get to an objective truth. you may never get to a perfect truth but closer to an objective truth. what you're seeing here, as you point out, is that people who have broken camp, who are no longer on the president's team are providing, we think, like we

saw in the flynn sentencing memorandum, the truth. and this is what advances the ball for prosecutors. >> joyce, let me ask you about the two documents we expect at any moment now. that is the filing from the mueller team about michael cohen's cooperation and a filing from mueller's team about, we call it shorthand. paul manafort's lies. what could the president have gleaned about what is coming that might explain something that counts as unhinged even for this president in his early morning missives? >> that's the question that we're all waiting to have answered today, right? with bated breath. the most interesting thing that i'll be looking for is whether we'll have a repetition of the dedaction from the flynn memo earlier this week. mueller's team uses redaction to keep ongoing investigations from going into the public domain. and prosecutors do that because when the focus of your investigation becomes too public, it can really become impossible to get to the truth.

if we see a lot of redaction in these two pleadings later today, we'll know that there continue to be ongoing matters. they'll likely be material and significant. and although it's possible they'll involve cohen's personal businesses, given everything else that's on the table, it's equally likely that they'll be working closer towards the president and his family. >> and this white house, kristen welker, may be engaged themselves. or the president's personal lawyers may still be engaged with mueller. you've reported that in the last 12 hours. tell us about that. >> that's right, nicolle. i spoke to two sources who confirm that the president's legal team has resumed discussions with the legal team of special counsel robert mueller. now what are the nature of those conversations? we don't know. these sources would not say, and they wouldn't say whether mueller's team has asked yet again for an in-person interview. but bottom line, this is really the first time that we're

learning about this in the wake of president trump, of course, submitting written answers in november to questions by mueller. so this is yet another development. yet another esescalation. i've been talking to legal experts who say, look, the reality is, in a high-profile case, the teams are in contact. so we shouldn't read too much into this, but bottom line, this is the first time we're learning about this, and it's significant. >> they're in contact wirth a whole bunch of people. a joint defense agreement with roger stone's ally corsi. there's reporting that manafort's lawyers are still in contact with them. what's your sense of their awareness or sort of grasp on reality in terms of the exposure the president and his inner circle have with all these pieces still in motion? >> well, nicolle, there's rising agita and angst within the republican orbit near washington. especially on capitol hill.

there was one number that jumped out earlier this week to key senators as a sign of some deep concern and that was 19. that's the number of times that former national security adviser michael flynn met with or participated, cooperated with the mueller team. that's a big number. and that has caused a lot of concern that maybe mueller's on to something. maybe there's more here than the white house is prepared for or than the president's legal team has suggested. the president's team, by the way, is trying to staff up in the counsel's office ahead of january. they don't just have to deal with the mueller investigation but democrats assuming the majority in the house of representatives and are preparing for a number of investigations on a number of different fronts. so it's very much a white house under siege and a feeling among trump's allies in washington that there's not sort of the war footing the president may need. >> phil rucker, can i ask you about nick ayers.

"the wall street journal report"ed that trump is telling his associates stop calling john kelly. all nick ayers. he's my guy. i heard he was instrumental in the advice. he and emmitt flood on the selection of mr. barr for attorney general. he's already a player in the inner circle. do they feel he's the horse they can ride to sort of calmer waters or is he someone who the lights are on him, that's a high-profile job in washington, d.c., one of the most powerful jobs in that city. is he someone they know where all the bodies are buried with him? >> it's unclear. nick ayers is the vice president's chief of staff. a hard-charging young political operative. the reason the president is interested in him in potentially being a replacement for john kelly, and this has been rumored for several months is nick ayers has a sharp political antenna. a campaign operative. this is a white house shifting quick three campaign foot with the 2020 re-election campaign going to be kicking off soon.

you've got democrats taking over in the house. you'll have the 2020 democratic presidential primary taking place all through next year. so the white house, you know, if nick ayers were to become the chief of staff, could be more political but it's also worth pointing out, as we all know, that nick ayers has detractors as well inside the white house so it may not be an entirely smooth ride. >> that's a good prediction. >> heilemann, i want to ask you about a reminder matt miller has that all this talk about mueller, we may be overlooking what represents another threat to the president. whatever mueller may find about trump's criminality, sdny has a witness who said under oath they committed a crime. >> he points out sharp things. i think one thing he would say, i think if we elaborate on this

tweet, it's not like these investigations are separate investigations, right? and so it is true that there are two different memos that are due. we're focusing on the mueller memos, the documents, that sdny will have a separate document of its own and that would be bad if it got lost in the shuffle. that may tell us important things. it's also the case that what we -- what cohen is doing is when he's -- when he's singing and talking to all of these various affiliated prosecutors, whether it's in the southern district or down in washington, d.c., in the special counsel's office, he's basically testifying to all of them. in a global way. that's what his cooperation is about right now. trying to get his sentence reduced as much as possible by being as helpful as possible to anyone who is pursuing anything related to trump, related to the specific ambit of the special prosecutor but also these things that are related to stormy daniels and things that are sort of outside the special prosecutor's -- and the businesses. so, yes, got to pay attention but i think no one is going to

miss the importantance of michael cohen when these documents come out. >> kristen welker, thank you for your reporting and for spending time with us. after the break, one of the men blasted by the president this morning, jim comey, was back on capitol hill today fielding questions from the house judiciary committee. we'll bring you the latest. also ahead, a former fox news personality lands a huge new job. a former marine is about to lose his. and donald trump is calling someone dumb as a rock. stick around and we'll tell you who. here we go.

discover. i like your card, but i'm absolutely not paying an annual fee. discover has no annual fees. really? yeah. we just don't believe in them. oh nice. you would not believe how long i've been rehearsing that. no annual fee on any card. only from discover.

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.

this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. a cloud of concerns swirling around donald trump's pick to

run the department of justice and with it the mueller investigation. the president today announcing william barr as his next attorney general. and already critics callering for him to recuse himself from the russia probe. that's because of newly surfacing public comments that support some of trump's most extreme positions. some examples. barr has downplayed mueller's central allegations against trump on collusion and obstruction. he's praised trump's decision to fire jim comey. he supported investigating bill and hillary clinton over debunked conspiracy theories like uranium one and supports trump's calls to investigate his rivals. and it takes on greater significance after reports that trump has been reoccupied by his fear that his next ag would recuse himself. from charlie savage and maggie haberman at "the new york times," mr. trump has repeatedly asked whether the next pick would recuse himself from

overseeing the investigation. jeff sessions recused himself early in the tenure souring his relationship with trump. joyce, phil, chuck and john are still here. john, what do you think of this pick? >> look, we're going to find out. the best thing about the pick is it's a pick. and then we'll get to go to the senate and have a confirmation hearing and all the stuff we've not gotten for the acting ag. so many things problematic with the current situation we're in that a formal pick now placed before the united states senate that can do the kind of vetting that is required here will be able to find out more. you know bill barr. someone who isain establishment republican public figure. he's had the job before. worked for an establishment republican who we spent the last week mourning. it's not a crazily outside the mainstream pick. it's someone who is qualified unlike the current serving acting attorney general.

qualified on the merits. now all of the issues people are raising as areas of concern that might make a case for him to recuse himself from this investigation, i want to hear more about all that stuff that i currently know. those may be sound concerns but this is not a pick. this is a pick that another republican president once picked. a republican president in he mainstream. a respectable pick but one who deserves serious scrutiny and particularly serious scrutiny on these issues that would relate to the issue of recusal specifically on this matter. >> and i guess chuck rosenberg, my question about this selection isn't whether or not he has logged enough hours in doj circles. it's whether in this extraordinary moment in which we find ourselves with a commander in chief who is attacking a justice department -- an fbi investigation into russian interference in america's democracy. someone who shares his concerns is the right person to sit atop that department. >> well, the president, nicolle, has nemade it very difficult fo

anybody to become attorney general of the united states. it's a remarkably difficult job to begin with. john is right. the value of a senate confirmation hearing to me is twofold. first, we're going to learn about some of the issues that may require his recusal. i think of bill barr as a principled figure, a thoughtful leader and as a qualified person to be the attorney general. but we still have to hear about some of the things he said. and the senate confirmation hearing is the way to do it. and it gives members of the senate an ability to extract from him certain promises about how he'll conduct himself in office. i think that's also critically important. look, those of white house have said things on television we try to be thoughtful and try to be accurate. but we do have to account for them at some point. and his time to account for the things he said will be coming up. >> let me ask you about jim comey. he's up on capitol hill today on the other side with house judiciary, i believe. a fiery group over there.

they lobbed questions at republicans like jeff sessions and rod rosenstein about a second special counsel, about the hillary clinton e-mail investigation, about all manner of things. what do you think your former colleague is up there fielding, and when do you think we'll hear about how that went? >> well, we'll hear about it very soon because the transcript of that hearing or deposition will be made public tomorrow, but i don't think we'll learn much. here's why. if they want to talk about the hillary clinton e-mail investigation, it's hard to imagine that there isn't a question that's been asked and answered of jim comey who has testified endlessly, exhaustively about it. if they want to ask questions about the russia interference investigation, jim comey either can't talk about it, at least not publicly, or doesn't know the answer because he's been gone from the fbi for 18 months. so i think this hearing, this deposition is really just a long walk through dry sand. it won't be all that interesting. >> joyce, pick up on that.

this really is sort of beating a dead horse, if you will. these questions have been asked and answered and asked again at donald trump's request and asked again at donald trump's twitter feed request. this is just a political exercise from the president and these are republicans on this committee tragically simply doing his bidding, not trying to learn anything new. >> you might even say that it's a witch hunt except that there don't seem to be any witches when jim comey is in the room testifying. the tragedy here is the tragedy for the american people. that congress who is charged with investigating russia interference, cyberinterference in our election has completely abdicated that role. and while they should have spent the last two years making us safer, understanding what happened, perhaps considering re-upping legislation like the help america vote act which used to provide funding so that our counties could update their machines and their equipment and

that law was permitted to lapse. congress should be working on solutions instead of looking for witches where none exist. >> it's a bumper sticker i'm going to put on my car. phil rucker, let me come back to you on comey. donald trump has sort of people he just can't quit, even if they are his own, you know, favorite frenemies. comey is one of them. what is he doing on capitol hill today? >> well, i think we covered that. he's there because president trump and his allies among the house republicans would like him to be there again to answer these questions. we'll find out when the tran crypt comes out what those questions were, but the reporting has shown it's covering all the same ground and it's going into all of the president's enemies who he tweets about all the time and did again in that series of early friday morning tweets today. you know, the president is, in a way, a little bit obsessed with jim comey and has been for some time and probably will be for some time to come.

and feels like comey has committed crimes that he needs to be held responsible for. and i think he's never going to let that go. >> phil rucker makes a good point. we learned last week he'd still like to prosecute jim comey and hillary clinton. >> yeah, i mean, he's -- we know these -- there's a series of adjectives, negative adjacket e i -- adjectives i could apply to donald trump. he continues to litigate these in his mind over and over again. he won't let them go. he's a person who holds grudges. obviously true. also the case that talking about these things are ways to distract attention from all the real stuff we prefoer to talk about which is more relevant. either o neither one of them is ever going to be prosecuted. it reflects donald trump's paranoia and his inability to let go of the past.

>> his cable news viewing habits. >> yes, all of those. the reason i shrug about it is jim comey not going to be prosecuted. hillary clinton is not going to be prosecuted. this is all sound and i think we learned chuck rosenberg is not a big beach guy. doesn't love the long strolls down waikiki. i wish jim comey didn't have to go through it but he's not going to end up in jail. >> are we all sure the next attorney general won't greenlight any investigation or prosecution of any of trump's political enemies? you first, chuck? >> i believe there's a strong gravitational pull in the department that will work on bill barr. i'm not concerned about this appointment but there are some questions he needs to answer. >> joyce? >> agree with chuck. there will be strong institutional forces that will push back if a new attorney general tries to turn doj into a political arm of the white house. >> phil rucker? >> you know, i think covering donald trump long enough to say

we should never rule anything out. >> i'm with phil rucker on this. >> i'm with joyce and chuck. do i think donald trump will call for various things? we'll make a lot of noise but in the end, as much as i think -- there's an -- donald trump would like nothing more than a corrupt leader at the top of the department of justice. the department of justice is a very, very powerful institution in its traditions and in its -- at the core of the institution. and i think that the gravitational pull will win in the end. >> phil rucker, thank you. i'm with you. the former secretary of state who once called the president a moron in public opens -- in private, opens up in public. donald trump fires back. you do. let's clear a path. let's put down roots. let's build something.

let's do the thing that you do. let's do the thing that changes the shape of everything... that pushes us forward and keeps us going. let's do the work. 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.

♪ applebee's bigger, bolder grill combos are back. now that's eatin good in the neighborhood.

i think he really is trying to act on his instincts. it was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly

processed oriented exxonmobil corporation to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn't like to read, doesn't read briefing reports, doesn't like to get into the details of a lot of things but rather just kind of says, look, this is what i believe, and you can try to convince he me otherwise but most of the time you're not going to do that. >> a man who doesn't read, wow. nothing speeds through trump world like an insult. trump responding to that from his former secretary of state in just the last hour. tweeting, quote, mike pompeo is doing a great job. i'm very proud of him. his predecessor, rex tillerson, didn't have the mental capacity needed. he was, wait for it, dumb as a rock, and i couldn't get rid of him fast enough. he was lazy as hell. now it is a whole new ball game. great spirit at state. that was real from the president of this country on twitter.

yep. that tweet doesn't address what tillerson said. he painted a picture of a president who knows nothing and reads nothing. as for the president's latest appointment today, here is who he picked to be the next u.n. ambassador. >> when you talk about germany, we have a strong relationship with the government of germany. looking back in the history books, today is the 71st anniversary of the speech that announced the marshall plan. tomorrow is the anniversary of the d-day invasion. we, obviously, have a very long history with the government of germany and a strong relationship with the government. and so we want to reaffirm the strength of our relationship with germany. >> to be clear, the person who will be representing this country in front of 193 other countries, the position once held by titans of international relations, people respected the world over, people like george h.w. bush and madeleine albright, she once cited world war ii as a high point in ger n german/u.s. relations.

rick stengel. and the rev al sharpton. host of "politics nation" here. go. >> i think we're being a little unfair. she holds the job that i -- she's the acting under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. she did a credible job as a spokesperson. the state department briefs every day. and we don't hear about it. she's doing a pretty good job. the other thing is, let her be ambassador to the u.n. what trump should do is he should no longer have the ambassador to the u.n. be a cabinet -- >> it's not. he downgraded it. >> and it -- but, no, she is still -- nikki haley was a member of the cabinet. >> he's downgraded the job. >> that's fine. the ambassador to the u.n. -- >> but i think it's -- listen. i was there through bush's various appointments. some better received than others to the u.n. the appointment of john bolton,

someone who advocated the u.n. not being necessary, sent a signal to the world that bush had to deal with. the appointment of -- i mean you send a signal by the person you send. by sending someone who is not -- you don't think who you send to the u.n. matters? >> i think it matters. i think it's much more of a public relations job. when trump said about nikki haley -- >> but that's my point. it's a public relations job so doesn't the person you pick matter? >> it, does and she did a credible job as a state department spokesperson. she's not george bush 41. george bush 41, who had been ambassador to the n. dou.n. downgraded it from a cabinet level. eisenhower made it a cabinet level position. i wouldn't worry about it that much. i don't think it matters that much. >> heilemann? >> it's a pretty important job. maybe it's -- yes, you could say that diplomacy and i feel like i don't want to get in a fight

with rick about something he knows more about than me, but public diplomacy is mostly in some sense a public relations job. it's a global public relations job. still seems important to me and to have someone -- >> i don't want to advocate for it. >> look, she -- that particular mistake was a bad mistake but it's a mistake and -- >> let's leave her out of it. >> a lot of people say dumb things on television occasionally -- >> i'm one of them. this president, everywhere he goes, someone has to clean up the mess. is she the best person to clean up a fight with canada? is she a person who -- can she sit next to sergey lavrov who spent a lot of years here in new york. >> there's a slight problem with -- a significant problem is that for people who are world leaders, they'll look at her and think that she is too lightweight for the job. on the basis of her credentials, not on the basis of anything else but a television personality primarily and they'll have the same problem with her that they have with trump on some level which is how much does she know about the world? is this someone i should take seriously? those are -- he's setting her up

to fail in a way and given some of her things she's said, she's more likely to exacerbate some of these problems than ameliorate them. >> the president of the united states did call his former secretary of state dumb as a rock. >> well, that along with his appointment today actually fits perfectly with his entire administration and the tenor of that. >> we've learned a lot about what the president thinks about the u.n. over and over. today is no different. this is actually -- and i think she's the perfect appointment for an administration that sees very little value in diplomacy. >> i think that we've got to deal with this, though, in the context of donald trump being president. you know, in all respect to rick and john, i think we're talking about this like we're talking about a normal president. >> right. >> this is a man who has affronted and offended most of the world. >> right. and nikki was --

>> it becomes a different role. i just came back from south africa. i'm getting flavor from all over the world. >> it'll me what they think of him there. >> without breaking confidence of people, they think he -- >> break a little bit of confidence. >> lost our minds having him as president. so i think you have an added need for someone that represents us in the u.n. to be able to deal with the low opinion world leaders have, including those at an ambassador level. and not only is she not qualified, i think she looks like she's right in line with the kind of behavior that has brought us to this low level of respect. >> jim comey just stepped up to the microphone after testifying. >> a transcript of my return visit will be the week after next and then this will be over. >> -- when the new attorney general nominee served as attorney general the last time. do you have confidence he can act with impartiality in this

job? >> i like bill barr. i know he cares deeply about the integrity of the justice department. i'm sure he'll use the standard career resources he has to judge what he should be involved in and what he shouldn't be involved in. but bill barr is a talented person who was a good attorney general the first time. i liked him very much then. i think he'll serve in the justice department well. >> do you think he should recuse himself -- >> i'm sure he'll talk to the career officials about how to handle that. >> how extensively have you cooperated with the mueller investigation at this point? >> i can't talk about that. >> have you talked to -- >> i can't talk about that. i could, but i won't. sorry. >> the republicans came out and said that the government lawyers ran interference and shut down specific lines of questioning. did that happen, and if so, what topics were not discussed? >> when you read the transcript i think you'll see that not happening. >> specific topics that you still feel like you can't discuss from your time as fbi director? you've been out the door a year

and a half. what can't you answer? >> well, the fbi, for understandable reasons, doesn't want me talking about the details of the investigation that is still ongoing. it began when i was fbi director. and so it makes sense that they don't want me going into those details but that's a very teeny part of what we talked about today. a whole lot of hillary clinton's e-mails which will bore you. >> you're okay with -- >> the next time the hearing will be public? was there any talk of that? >> there wasn't any talk of it. i wish it were going to be public. but i think we're going to have to do it the same way again. >> you were okay with the barr nomination gop you have any concerns about the firing of jeff sessions and the president continually going after jeff sessions for not recusing himself on the investigation? >> the president's attacks on the justice department broadly and the fbi are something that no matter what political party you're in, you should find deeply troubling. and continue to speak out about. not become numb to attacks on the rule of law. >> so the firing of sessions specifically --

>> that's not something i can comment on. >> director comey, can i ask you a question on fisa. did you have total confidence in the document when you used it to secure a warrant and -- >> total confidence the fisa process was followed and the entire case was handled in a thoughtful way by doj. the notion it was abused here is nonsense. >> how do you feel bob mueller's investigation is going? >> as a private citizen, as someone who knows the justice system, i see it proceeding incredibly quickly and very, very professionally. the most important indication of that is you don't know anything about it except when he files something in court and that's how it should be. >> your prepared to turn next year when democrats regain control of congress perhaps on the questions of obstruction of justice and the impeachment case? >> i always want to respect the institution of congress. i would love it if they didn't want me to testify, but if they want me to testify and we can do

it in a responsible way, i will abide it. so we'll see what happens. >> do you know anything about rod rosenstein wearing a wire? did that ever come up in any of your discussions? >> i can't comment on that. >> all right, everyone. enjoy your weekend. >> that was jim comey answering some questions after his closed door testimony. he said at the top of those remarks that he would be back. i think the week after next. we heard that just as we came into him. but in other breaking news, the sentencing memo from michael cohen has just come out. i don't even have a copy in front of me. i'm going to read you some of what i can see on my phone and hand it around to everybody else to pick up what they've got. bear with us, please. cohen, an attorney and businessman committed four distinct federal crimes over a period of several years. he was motivated to do so by personal greed and repeatedly used his power and influence for deceptive ends. now he seeks extraordinary leniency. a sentence of no jailtime based principally on his rose-colored view of the seriousness of the

crimes. his claims to provision of certain information to law enforcement, but the crimes committed by more serious and were marked by a pattern of deception that permeated his professional life and was evidently hidden from the friends and family members. this is brutal. this doesn't sound like michael cohen went in there and convinced anyone that he was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> well, having not -- i am going to try to refrain from commenting too much on this having not read the entire document. one thing i've learned from listening to our legal analysts when talking about the michael flynn documents, is that when these sentencing documents come out, the prosecutor is required to lay out everything. >> right. >> the negative case against the person in question and all the positives. all the mitigating factors. so having not read this document, i don't want to -- i am hesitant to draw conclusions -- >> no, that's right.

that's right. so here it is. we'll show it to you. it's thick from the southern district of new york. we were warned via tweet from our colleague matt miller that that was where potentially the most danger and exposure lie. not just for michael cohen, but for the president. let me read you the table of contents to give you a sense of the scope of this document for michael cohen. in the table of contents, michael cohen's willful tax evasion. michael cohen's false statements to financial institutions. cohen's illegal campaign contributions. cohen's false statements to congress. cohen's meetings with law enforcement. so to your point, john heilemann, there is a lot in here. but also rick stengel, he did a lot of bad things. he committed a lot of crimes. >> yes, the southern district interests are not the same as the special counsel. the southern district doesn't care that michael cohen is incriminating president trump. he's there -- they are concerned that these are the crimes that you violated in our district and

you need to be punished for them. they don't see any leniency in the fact that cohen trying to depict himself as someone who is trying to save the republic. no, the southern district is concerned -- he's a prosecutor. he's concerned about the crimes he committed in manhattan. >> ken dilanian has joined us. let me read to you from page 22. a substantial term of imprisonment is warranted but cohen was asking for was no prison term. it does not look like the southern district of new york agreed with michael cohen. they write in this document, as set forth herein, conversation of the factors set forth in u.s. code 183553 weighs heavily in favor of a substantial term of imprisonment, in particular the nature and seriousness of the offenses in the need to promote respect for the law and afford adequate deterrence are especially weighty considerations. that seems really different, ken dilanian, from the language in the mike flynn sentencing document which kind of had it on the one hand on the other. on the one hand, mike flynn's

military service was described by mueller's team as admirable, as impressive. it was also described mike flynn knew better. as someone that served at the highest levels of government, he should have known better than t should have known better than to lie to the fbi. what do you make of the con tres with michael cohen's document? >> you're right. this is a tough document for michael cohen. the prosecutors are not buying his story that he should have no prison time, and they go through at great length his tax evasion, his lies. they also talk about the fact that he held himself out as a consultant with access to the trump administration and made a lot of money, but they said those promises of access and information rang hollow. crucially, there's a section about the illegal campaign contributions, which we already know about. he talked about this in court. now the prosecution, the united states of america, has endorsed the idea that michael cohen made an illegal campaign

contribution, let's see, in coordination with and at the direction of individual one, donald j. trump, now the president of the united states. >> so ken dilanian does donald j. trump in that statement you read become an unindicted cospon spur or the? >> i don't know what constitutes the legal definition for that. in lay terms, absolutely. people have told folks at this network if this wasn't the president of the united states he would be a target of the investigation, if not indicted on illegal campaign finance violations because the document goes on to talk about the scheme for which michael cohen was repaid for the money he paid to one of these women. and it was disguised as legal services and that was all a fraud. now, it doesn't say -- this document does not say that donald trump knew that's how cohen was reimbursed and that it was fraudulent but others in the

organization news because they had to cut the checks and we know from how the trump organization works, donald trump knows. on page 15 they talk about cohen's cooperation, and this is the southern district saying we understand his cooperation with robert mueller's office was ultimately credible and useful to its ongoing investigation. that is interesting because when you think of the circles that michael cohen has run in over the last ten years, if he is cooperating in a credible fashion with robert mueller's investigation into russian election interference and potentially obstruction of justice, that cannot be good news for donald trump and his family. >> chuck rosenberg let me ask you to pick up on that and hone in on section 4. i read the table of contents to our viewers. four kinds of crimes that michael cohen committed, southern district not calling for any leniency in his sentencing. let me ask you about this,

individual one, that's the president of the united states, here on page 11 on approximately june 16, 2015, individual 1, that's donald j. trump, for whom cohen worked at the time began an ultimately successful campaign for president. cohen had no title but an e-mail address and at various times advised the campaign and made media appearances as a surrogate. he played a role in two schemes to purchase the rights to stories each from women who claimed to have had an affair with donald trump. with respect to both payments cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 election. cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls about the facts, timing of the payments. is the southern district alleging or describing a conspiracy to commit campaign finance violations that includes the president of the united states? >> the first part of your

question yes, they're describing a conspiracy. the second part of your question maybe it's not clear with whom michael cohen conspired. although i recall him saying when he pled guilty that the payments were directed by the president but you still need to show intent. can i do a reset on sentencing? >> please. >> there's some context that may be important. a sentence in the federal system is determined by the federal sentencing guidelines. advisory guidelines that the judge typically follows. michael flynn's crime one count of lying to the fbi had a guideline recommended sentence of zero to six months. so even if he didn't cooperate, even if he did nothing other than plead guilty, he still stood a reasonably good chance of not going to jail at all. his guidelines were zero to six months. that was not the case for mr. cohen. mr. cohen's guidelines were -- i forget the exact number but were in the years --

>> four to ten years, right. >> -- range. so even with substantial assistance, the notion he would go to no jail time is exceedingly small. so he'll get some credit at sentencing for helping but he's not starting in the same place as general flynn. i hope that makes sense. >> it does. hileman have you been pouring through this document? >> there's a place late in the document where it talks about the decision to not recommend a s substantial decrease in sentencing. there's a section called cohen's request for sentencing is meritless. one is the emotional toll on his family would be great, they dismissed that very various reasons. the financial support and fund-raising for his children's former school, et cetera. get to page 37 and it says the following, lastly cohen places heavy reliance on his provision

for information to law enforcement, to be sure this case is in some respects unique and cohen's decision to give information to law enforcement -- it is the principle reason the office is not seeking a guideline sentence here. as noted above, cohen was aware the process which cooperators are involved, and declined to participant. he refused to discuss other uncharged criminal conduct, if any, in which he may have participated. this precludes him from being credit for substantial assistance. this goes to the point -- this is a point i heard chuck make the other night when we were talking about the flynn letter. where the word substantial assistance are a term of art, they suggest certain things where flynn went above and beyond the call of duty and gave robert mueller everything. in this case it appears that

michael cohen did cooperate, but did not cooperate in such a full manner that the prosecutors feel as though he's worthy of substantial assistance. >> chuck, please jump in with me here. this is the sentencing and cooperation agreement from the southern district. there will also be one from robert mueller, is that right? >> maybe. the bulk of this case was driven by the southern district of new york. i am sure that those prosecutors took into account the information that cohen provided to mueller. but my guess is that this document, the one you have in front of you, is going to drive the sentencing, nicole. >> joyce, you joined us, too. your thoughts? >> i think it's important to remember that nothing that's in this document comes as a surprise to michael cohen or his lawyers. this is part of the ying and yang of sentencing. cohen obviously wants a sentence of no time. i think chuck does a great job

pointing out why that's unlikely given the sentencing guideline range. but the point from the southern district of new york that john hileman just read is the most interesting one. cohen's cooperation wasn't immediate, complete or thorough. that's what prosecutors look for when they're giving people the most credit for sentencing. cohen will get some credit but it will not be the same sort of cooperation credit that mike flynn got that we saw earlier this week. >> i would ask chuck and joyce this question. is there tension between the southern district and the special counsel's office? up high in the document, page 2, southern district says to be clear, cohen does not have a cooperation agreement. to be clear, cohen's description of those efforts of helping the special counsel is overstated in some respects and incomplete in others. is there tension between the special counsel and the southern district's office? >> chuck, do you want to take that -- go ahead, joyce.

>> i would say no one would be surprised if the southern district of new york, which we call sometimes the sovereign district of new york had a little tension with other prosecutors' offices. the likelihood here is cohen may have cooperated differently with the southern district than he did with special counsel. he may have had more sensitivity when it came to his personal financial dealings so they would likely have different assessments of his cooperation. >> they likely had more leverage over him,av had family members involved with the southern district. you spent time with michael cohen, did he know this was coming? >> i think joyce hit it right. i think he would not be surprised. he, as i stated before, i met with him twice, the last time he asked me to pray with him. he said, i'm going to jail. i think the question was, how long? and how severe? but i don't think he's surprised. i think his lawyers are not surprised. i think he knew, particularly if

he never made the agreement. i think he knew he was looking at jail time. it was how much he could shave off. and i think that's what we're beginning to get some idea at. >> i would throw this question to chuck, is one of the central key differences here between these two, between the flynn and cohen case, is that flynn cooperated immediately, early, right out of the gate -- >> and often. >> -- and that cohen was late? one of the big differences here is between early cooperation and late cooperation? >> flynn was immediate, it was fullsome, it was timely and it was therefore substantial. cohen was later and less. look, to the earlier point about tension, there's always tension. doj is a big family, but in the end it's a family and they're going to reach one point of view, it's articulated in this document. >> i'm going to thank joyce, chuck,