ryan hampton, now more than four years sober and author of "american fix: inside the opioid addiction crisis and how to end it." thank you very much for being here today, sir. >> thank you for having me. that wraps up this hour for me. be sure to catch "kasie dc" right here at sunday night at 7:00 p.m. thank you for watching. "deadline: white house" with my friend nicole wallous starts right now. hi, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. accounting attorney general matthew whitaker is balking at a possible subpoena from the house judiciary committee in advance of his long scheduled testimony tomorrow. that testimony expected to cover topics like what whitaker communicated to donald trump before being tapped to serve as acting attorney general. and house judiciary committee voting today to authorize the subpoena just in case whitaker doesn't show up or refuses to answer questions whether he

sought to interfere in the investigation in the southern district of new york or mueller problem. in response, whitaker accuses the committee of engaging in, quote, political theater. from his statement -- the committee now has deviated from historic practice and protocol and taken the unnecessary and premature step of authorizing a subpoena. the justice department also demanded a written assurance by 6:00 p.m. tonight that whitaker won't be subpoenaed tomorrow. we will bring any response to you as soon as we get it and we'll have a democratic member of that committee with us in a moment for more on what's coming next. the daily beast is out today with some of the most detailed reporting on what preparing whitaker for his testimony tomorrow has been like. whitaker has gone through multiple practice committee hearings, known as muts, where justice department officials pepper him with questions that committee democrats mlob. that's according to multiple doj officials involved in the prep.

they tried to prepare him for lengthy statements, harsh tones and leading questions. dozens of department officials have helped him prepare. those officials told the daily beast, working through the government shutdown to brief him and get him ready. among the questions they're preparing for him to field, did you have any communication with any white house official, including trump, about the possibility of your appointment as acting ag? did you consult with the white house about your decision to not recuse from the mueller problem before or after it was announced? and this one, have you ever received a briefing on the status of the special counsel's investigation? and if so, have you communicated any information you learned in that briefing? now, a high-stakes game of chicken between the justice department and house judiciary committee puts into question whether we will get any of those questions answered. that's where we start today, with some of our favorite reporters and friends. former u.s. attorney harry

litman, "the new york times" political reporter and msnbc contributor nick comp sari, karine is back, moveon.org and msnbc contributor and in washington jeremy bash, former chief of staff at both the cia and pentagon now, and msnbc national security analyst is with us. let me start with you, harry. what is behind the committee's sort of feeling that they needed to have this subpoena ready, not just to have it ready but to make it public that they had it ready? >> tactically, i think they were anticipating he would take executive privilege about these important questions and he probably would have. it's unlikely they would have gotten much more than name, rank and serial number. and even that from the preparations he might not have been able to handle very well. but think wanted to make it clear it might have been a tactical mistake. it gives whitaker now an easy excuse to say you're jumping the gun, i won't be there tomorrow,

can easily run out the clock. he's not acting attorney general in a week. >> what does that mean? might never get him? >> it's quite possible. first of all, iernterest might wane. and second depending where he burrows in, if it's somewhere in the justice department, its trickier to ask for him. whenever they get him and ask the questions they want to know, they will hear executive privilege and the subpoena is not a silver bullet because it will trigger a long, arduous and not necessarily successful court fight. >> jeremy bash, i read these questions and was thinking if robert mueller is investigating the president for possible obstruction of justice, he too might want to know if matthew whitaker was briefed on the mueller probe and told donald trump about it. what do you think the chances are that not just congress has these questions and seeks these answers but robert mueller also wants to talk to matt whitaker about the kind of conduct that the questions shared with him covers? >> i think there's a likelihood

that the special counsel is interested in whether or not matt whitaker was specifically put in that job to replace jeff sessions to constrain or starve the investigation, and i think they're interested from a credential perspective and possibly criminal law perspective as to whether or not matt whitaker is a conduit of information back to the white house. but i'm not convinced, nicolle, that the counsel, special counsel's office, has communicated those concerns to the judiciary committee of the house. sometimes there's an ability to coordinate investigations between a doj investigation and a congressional investigation, but sometimes when the doj investigation is so sensitive, and so closely hold, they're not going to tell the company of the judiciary committee, hey, we're interested in this topic. >> i spoke, nick, to a congressional source close to the preparations for this questioning on the democratic side. and he said that the questions are so basic, how did you get

your job? i think sort of at the heart of understanding whether the fix is in on the mueller probe is this question of how did you get your job? he was appointed chief of staff to sessions by former white house counsel don mcgahn. he was installed to spy on sessions after that recusal and at least one trump ally thought his mission was pretty clear. here's chris christie on what his mission was. >> i think he's really there to get the mueller investigation done. what the president's attempting to do here is have somebody who's already involved to get the mueller investigation to its completion and turn the page for a new justice department afterwards. >> so time is running out. if christie is right and he talks to the president and plenty of people in the white house, a lot more often than i do, if he was there to land the mueller investigation, one, that's in conflict of my understanding of the timing of the mueller investigation but

barr is about to be confirmed. >> also, land is a curious word. land in one sense? crash it into the ground? or land it safely to be opened up and looked at? he was the inside man in the sessions regime. if you're the house democrats, what you're looking at is a certain set of facts. he criticized the investigation into the president. the president has said how he enjoys having the senate nonconfirmed people, heads of agencies, because they're more compliant. so it does obviously beg the question of why he was there. he never had to run a gauntlet of senate confirmation and answer these questions. the problem here is there's a pent-up desire for answers from the hill that republicans did not want to get and the white house did not want to give. >> i mean, that seems to be a scandal wrapped in a scandal. that the republicans didn't want to get to the bottom of it. this is the justice department and while no one is without an ideology, it's usually separated

from the most heated partisan battles. donald trump attacks the investigation every day. and it seems central to find out what matt whitaker promised him or said to him before he got the job. >> right. it's supposed to be an independent body of the doj, and it hasn't been treated that way essentially by donald trump, who has awe said attacks the department of justice every time he can. matt whitaker as we have been saying has been wholly unqualified to be the ag. there's a question, why are you there? so the speculation is that he's there to be the eyes and ears of donald trump. but the thing is, this is not how it works. the administration cannot respond to basic questions of obstruction of justice by obstructing justice. this is not the place that we should be in. but because we're in donald trump's white house, this is where we are. and he's trying to get away with it and maybe he might because time is running out, as you mentioned. >> jeremy, can you just jump in

on sort of the elephant in the room. i think all of the questions about whitaker have at their core the fact he's not held in high regard in legal circles, certainly not on the left, and not on the right either. i have never -- and i talked to a lot of former doj officials in legal circles who worked for the 41 administration, 43 administration, on other side of legal debates during president clinton's administration, president obama, he is not held in high regard. so what is your theory why he's there? >> i think he's there in part to make doj into dojo, department of justice obstruction. i think he's there to make sure that, first of all, as chris christie said on that piece of tape, the mueller investigation ends, comes to an end quickly. and it does no material damage to the president. more concerning he's there to give the heads up to the president and white house about

what mueller is finding. there are very relevant questions for the judiciary committee to ask of this acting attorney general, and the fact that he's saying i won't show up if you threaten me with the subpoena, i mean, it's kind of a heads i win, tails you lose scenario. basically he's saying, i may not show up and if you force me to show up, then i'm definitely not showing up. i agree the subpoena threat only gets you so far because you can really subpoena a person and you can subpoena documents, you can't subpoena answers. so if he tries to invoke executive privilege, then it's going to be basically down to a fight between the committee and department of justice, and that may take a very long time to litigate. >> here to tell us more about how that might end up, from capitol hill democratic congressman ted lu, member of the house judiciary committee. if you can start by telling us the latest, do you expect to see acting attorney general matt whitaker testify in front of your committee tomorrow, i think

at 9:30? >> we do. there's no reason for matt whitaker not to appear and if he doesn't, the american people need to ask what is he hiding. the house judiciary committee has bent over backwards working with matt whitaker. we gave him the main questions weeks ago as a courtesy. we also negotiated with his office. there's no reason he doesn't show up and testify. >> what was the strategy -- senior justice department official told me today he planned to testify when he saw the threat of the subpoena. that's what made him balk. what was behind the strategy of going public with your commitment to using your subpoena power should he not answer the questions you want answered? >> actually, we were actually trying to give more courtesy to matt whitaker. last term the republicans simply subpoenaed multiple witnesses to testify. in this case we didn't even issue a subpoena. we just authorized issuance of a subpoena. we were trying to be nice and this is how the department of justice treats us.

we will recalibrate and make sure with all future witnesses we're prepared for them to do delay tactics. we expect matt whitaker to premiere tomorrow. >> i think that's an important point to underscore, you did not subpoena him. you're simply prepared to do so if you don't get the evidence and information and testimony you need to answer these important, as you said, questions you made public weeks ago? >> that's correct. and we're not going to subpoena him if he invokes executive privilege. he has a right to invoke privilege. but what we don't want to have happen is what happened last term when multiple officials would go up to committees, not answer the question and say at some point in the future, privilege might be invoked and because of that we're not going to answer. you can't do that. we will ask him to make a choice, either he invokes privilege or doesn't, but he still has to show up and testify. >> i want to go through some of the questions and ask you -- obviously they're central to the government ability to get to the bottom of the russia probe,

russia's meddling in our 2016 election and whether the president knew about it, but they also seem to leave matt whitaker vulnerable himself. with the mind of both of those prongs, if i can go through the questions with you. you want to ask him if he had any communication with any white house official including but not limited to president trump about the possible appointment of acting ag that. seems to also get at whether whitaker obstructed justice, did it not? >> it could be read that way. depends on how matt whitaker answers that question. if he wants to invoke executive privilege, he has the right to do that. what he can't do sit there and not answer that question without invoking the privilege. that was the purpose of the issuance of the authorization for a subpoena today >> you also want to ask him if he consulted with the white house about the decision not to recuse himself from the mueller prone. that, too, depending on how he answers that, seems to leave him vulnerable to sort of being part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

>> that's correct. if whitaker did things that were incorrect or inappropriate, the american people have the right to know about it. he supervised the mueller probe for over two months. whether he testifies tomorrow or he doesn't, we're still going to have him come in and testify. he cannot escape testifying before congress. we need to find out what happened during these intervening two months, at which he supervised special counsel mueller's probe, and we will get to the bottom of this. >> do you have a sense -- any sort of evidence that you're in possession of that he kmu communicated these reassurances back to the president or the white house about how things would end, either in the southern district of new york or mueller probe? >> i personally don't have evidence. that's why we're going to ask these questions. i do know that last week he did on national tv say that he was getting briefings on special counsel mueller's probe and he offered a timeline, which i thought was wildly inappropriate, and this was before all of the evidence was

discovered in roger stone's properties. so we want to ask matt whit kerr about that as well. >> he's also had really hard lines about whether the president can obstruct justice. it seemed to render him at a minimum absent of any objectivity. but at a maximum, as someone if he had been briefed and had been involved in managing that probe, incapable of objectivity. what are you trying to get at? what sort of answers, what sort of truths are you looking for in your questioning of matthew whitaker? >> we need to know if he interfered in special counsel mueller's investigation. we're going to find that out whether that's tomorrow or whether it's a few weeks from now. he is going to testify in front of the judicial committee. it will only be a matter of if he does it and we're nice to him or if he does it and we're not nice to him. under the way the framers set up the constitution, we have the absolute right to conduct adequate oversight. in addition we wanted to know if

he communicated any information he's learned from the special counsel's investigation directly to the president. we believe that would be inappropriate depending on what he told the president. >> before i let you go, i know you're busy, but let me lob one more your way. everyone i talked to around the president believes the investigations out of the southern district of new york could represent the most ominous legal threat to this president. one of your questions for him is did president trump discuss the possibility of firing or reassigning personnel who worked for the southern district of new york? what are you seek neg that line of questioning? >> we know based open pattern of behavior of donald trump that he has fired people in the department of justice when they were not in line, in his own view. he fired fbi director comey to basically get rid of the russia investigation. he said that on national tv. he also threatened to fire rod rosenstein and other people. we want to know if he's trying to take action in the southern district of new york.

>> if anything happens in the next 44 minutes, you know where to go. keep us posted. we will keep the shot up for you. thank you so much for joining us today. we're grateful and hope you get some of the your questions answered tomorrow. we're all eager to know the answers. harry litman, he makes a great point. this was all done -- and this might be the conundrum of dealing with the trump administration, this was done in good faith, the point about tactics. they simply said if you don't show up, we're prepared to subpoena you, which in a normal white house -- and i worked in a normal white house, is information. it does not necessarily affect your conduct. >> that's right. it prompts at most the negotiation of what they will talk about. if it's a miscue, it's because in tactics it gave whitaker, who obviously would prefer not to testify and excuse something to brandish. the questions that you quoted, and they gave him, were pretty cleverly crafted. they're general and open-ended and hard to simply assert

executive privilege to. they would push him -- and this presumably is what he was practicing doing, pushing him a little farther down the line before he asserted. one more thing about executive privilege, it's a general balancing test and might be a harder battle for congress to win than for the special counsel. the nixon case suggests if mueller is iep the mueller is interested in talking to whitaker and asserts executive privilege, mueller should win. >> don mcgahn, whose name is invoked this hour, spent 30 hours with robert mueller. it seems like the debate of executive privilege has been add and robert mueller got the information he was looking for. if you can weigh in on your response to the congressman's comments. >> matt whit kerr can't invoke executive privilege. overtime the president can invoke executive privilege. what he may say like jeff sessions when he testified prior in the senate, he said i had

conversations in anticipation of a possible invocation of executive privilege by the president, don't know if he's going to do that but let's assume he will, i won't answer your question. and that's where the committee said i will subpoena him. i'm not sure i agree with harry it was a mistake in tactic. i just don't know it will be effective in actually getting whitaker's jaw to move and say words that would fill in exactly what he's trying to hide. but for all of your viewers at home, if he says tomorrow something like, in anticipation of executive privilege, quack, quack, quack, we know he's trying to hide something. >> he will say anything tomorrow because he won't be there. that's the point. >> you're betting he doesn't show up. >> congress expects to see him. jeremy bash, let me ask you about his personal exposure. it was flagged for me today if you look at how don mcgahn handled all of the questions -- and granted they came from the special counsel, not congress, but he made the decision to cooperate, spend 30 hours -- i'm sure he had a variety of reasons

for doing so, but one of them was to not himself have any exposure on the question of obstruction of justice. what is the legal liability facing matthew whitaker right now? >> it's hard to know, nicolle. i think don mcgahn probably cooperated because he was asked to cooperate. he's an officer of the court in a sense as a member of the bar and lawyer and wants to probably uphold some semblance of professional ethics. matt whitaker i think should be in the same posture. i don't know he will be. of course, if he engaged in any obstruction or leaked details of the investigation to the target of an investigation, then he certainly has some criminal exposure. but i think it's probably a little too early to tell but that's why the judiciary committee and others need these answers. >> it says so much about donald trump that people want to know did the president ask you to fire people in the southern district of new york. oh, my god, where are we? >> it is definitely a different type of administration. but i understand -- i would say

listening to congressman lieu, it's a different sheriff in office, they have the gavel and things are different. that's what i got listening to him. more civilized. >> we're not harassing him. >> we were nice to him. just think about your kid tells you i'm not going to go to school -- i'm not going to go to school if you make me go read, do math or science. it's so ridiculous. 1 it doesn't work that way. he has to go and testify. the public needs to know what is happening, what is donald trump doing and, like you said, we're asking these crazy questions about obstruction of justice in this administration and we have the right to know, and now there's a new sheriff in town. >> a source said to me what's fascinating is example after example of men and women being forced it choose between america and donald trump. >> look, he has put some answers through his lawyer at justice

about what he would say if asked some of these questions. and what the lawyer said, he will say i was not asked any special treatment for the president or any special actions for the counsel. you have to wonder if that's true, what's their problem in showing up? i have to runner, the daily beast story about this and all intensive prep, if they're just worried about having him in the hot seat, again, he was -- this will be his first time at the rodeo. he's not got a lot of experience with this. i can imagine just some worry there, sensitivity there. >> after the break, as donald trump struggles to adapt to the reality of a divided government, he reaches for his political security blanket. bumper sticker, insults and name-calling. we'll ask our panel how far those tricks will take him. breaking news this hour, transcript of a closed-door hearing in paul manafort's case released. a window how robert mueller's

working his way up the ladder. for a single dad, and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am. 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.

and our shirts from custom ink help bring us together. we order custom ink to welcome new employees, personalize team shirts, and even for company events. the design lab is so easy to use. we just upload out logo and if we have any questions, customer service is there to help. seeing our team together in custom ink gear is an amazing reminder of how far we've come as a business. - [narrator] custom ink has hundreds of products to help you look and feel like a team. upload your logo or start your design today at customink.com

it's called presidential harassment. >> when the democrats take the house -- >> then it's probably presidential harassment and we knee how to handle that. it's called presidential harassment. the president of your country is doing a great job but he's being harassed. >> presidential harassment is the new witch-hunt. president trump lashing out today as multiple congressional committees leap across his red line, announcing investigations into his finances. the house ways and means

committee today gearing up for battle in the fight for trump's tax returns. on the heels of an announcement that house intel will begin scrutinizing where donald trump gets his money. the president responded, of course, with a series of tweets this morning, including this one -- so now congressman adam schiff announces after having found zero russian collusion that he's going to be looking at every aspect of my life, both financial and personal, even though there's no reason to be doing so. never hand before, unlimited presidential harassment. hard to get through without laughing. joining our conversation, editor at large of the news site the bull wart, bill crystal. bill crystal. the new witch-hunt. >> it's silly. i love the way trump hits upon these phrases, he's clever about it and sometimes they catch on and he decided he will test drive presidential harassment. i think the sympathy people have with, quote, harassment of the president of the united states when the harassment consists of

what, calling cabinet officers to testify before congressional committees is limited. but if you step back and look at the forest, rather than the trees, hard to do with the trump presidency, the big story is we're a month in to democratic control of the house and they're doing pretty well and nancy pelosi won the big showdown with trump. that's a huge fact. the shutdown, we forgot about it and took it for granted, of course, the government would open with no wall or victory would trump. but it wasn't that way in november. you worried senate republicans wouldn't end up going along. now we have another in a week, another deadline. it's pretty clear, i think, senate republicans are not interested in shutting down the government. there will be appropriation bills. trump may try to do the emergency declaration but the white house says that's not so easy to do. they could be overridden. stories about how senate republicans won't hold. trump would have to veto and override the emergency and get the money from somewhere, which

congress doesn't like much because they aprobstpropriated money for other things. i think it's sinking in for a democratic white house led by a capable speaker and committee chairs and with a republican senate not quite as loyally subservient as they were before, this is different than it was six months ago. >> jeremy bash, hair him ta i h of presidential harassment, i think this is a man accused of harassment himself, i think close to 20 women. that's for another day, i guess. this idea what he's rejecting is dividing government poll after poll over decades, generations of american politics, show people feel better with divided government. not just at a national level but even in their states. a lot of people vote for republicans and democrats because they just feel better about checks and balances. as with the wall, he seems to have the substance wrong and the

politics here. >> what eahe's objecting to is article one of the kons fusion, the checks and balances, as you put it, divided government. i think even if there were a congressional body that was of the same party as the president, they would be and should be duty bound to conduct vigorous oversight to make sure the policies are in the best interest of the american people. what he's describing is fundamentally un-american. it's a system of autocracy, a system we see in dispodic regimes and we know how he loves and has a man crush and authoritarians so perhaps he's trying to emulate their system of government. >> i can't let that go because you pulled too many threads. what of all of that, you stitched together which you just said, his impulses, his instincts and he doesn't have a lot of policy he understands so all we have are his instincts, and they're towards autocracy. we know the fbi opened an

counterintelligence information into him because his conduct and statements were so trouble they thought he might be witting lr on unwittingly an agent of the russians. and you have him to prebrand everything they do, taint it in the eyes of 35% as part of harassment. what does this speak to in your eyes? you worked on some of these committees in terms of his consciousness of guilty? >> it shows he wants to escape scrutiny. he sees oversight not just as a threat to him politically but potentially as exposing some personal liability of his. he seemed to react most stridently to the suggestion by adam schiff, chairman of the house intelligence committee, that they would look at the fm state of the trump organization and its ties to the russian federation. that seems to be this red line that sort of causes the president to go into freak-out mode. i think, nicolle, earlier in the show you said the fundamental question of the mueller probe is whether or not russia interfered in the 2016 election and whether or not they had any

co-conspirators in the united states, in some ways the effort by the house now is a broader effort. it's an effort more about our natural interests, which is what leverage does the russian federation have over american foreign policy? it's much bigger, much more fundamental, much more forward looking question that i think is core to our national interest. >> it also seems to be riddle with proof points. we have donald trump at the end of the year, beginning of this year, talking about defending the soviet invasion of afghanistan. it seems to be what die fines the conundrum of the moment. you're right, looking at 2016, it has already hand. but the questions about whether or not he is under the influence of a foreign power, there seems to be evidence he might be every news cycle. >> that's right. that's where i think again the political leverage that was potentially achieved by support during the election and wikileaks and all of the things we now know about but the financial leverage the trump

moscow tower deal, the ongoing ties between trump and russian ole gark oligarchs, these are fundamental for oversight and for the house of representatives. >> just on all of these threads, he talks like a guilty man and what the house is doing really is sort of picking up with the evidence that we see before our eyes all the time. >> that's the big point. first, on this notion of presidential harassment, i think we can safely call that fake law. there's no concept. that is what article one provides. but the bigger point on this red line, you had fist thought it might have something to do with forging his fences, as has hand in history, clinton, et cetera. but the bigger point is, the finances now every week appear more and more to be interlocked with the basic questions of russian influence. the real worry here and what necessitates a real sharp scrutiny of the finances is it

may have been them and desire to maximize prophets then in fact jeopardize and compromise u.s. national interests. >> what do you think -- i think it was an interview with your colleagues, your white house correspondents, where he defined the red line as his businesses, as his finances. as we said, that has been trampled. what do you think has sort of changed, not that he's taking it lying down but he understands this is now very much under investigation and under scrutiny. >> i don't think the trump family and their business ever expected to have to withstand the scrutiny of the criminal investigation into their books. i think it's that simple. a civil lawsuit, perhaps. a criminal investigation, no. so now he's reckoning with the idea of all of his deals for many years, all of his dealings and finances being exposed on a public stage. this is a man who wouldn't hand over his tax returns, first candidate for president or first nominee in decades to not do that. he acts like a man with

something to hide on this question t does go to the central issue of the mueller probe. if the question is about collusion, then the russia tower and russian interest provides a possible answer, a possible motive of why he would be so eager both before being president and becoming president to steer american policy in ways that are beneficial to the russians. >> karine, the chairman and women of these committees seem to have been given a hand by the incompetence and unwillingness of the republicans who came before them. >> they have. and now they have to change that hand and actually do their jobs. one thing you said, nick, about how the president sees this. for decades, all of his life, he's gotten away with it as a citizen. he sees being president as king. he doesn't understand this is a democracy and can you not do these things and you're not above the law. that's one of the problems that i think he's having. he can't come to terms with that. another thing that bill was saying as well is the last two

months or so, donald trump has been testing the democrats. he knows it's now dave i'ddivid government, he knows potentially the impeachment word is out there. he tested it but he lost. you saw nancy pelosi, especially dogwalk him with stilettos on for 35 days. and he lost that fight. and so now he's realizing oh, no, i need to double down. presidential harassment, coming from the same man who peddled birtherism for a year and harassing barack obama. so now he's like uh-oh, i'm in trouble. and i think that's what bewe're seeing. he's realizing what it means to have a divided government. >> having mueller and pelosi is difficult. if you only had mueller, you can beat it back, as we have seen with whitaker, woe not be getting subpoenaed as a democratic house commit kbli teo

so. having mueller and pelosi facing up to you, that must be daunting for trump. >> this is a man's experience of power his entire career up until now is no limits. he had more or less compliant congress, ran his own business where he could snap his fingers. this is why ceo's often make a bad transition into politics. it's not like running a company. being president is very different. >> even for a good ceo. when we come back, the breaking news on the paul manafort case. the paul manafort case. there's little rest for a single dad,

and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am. so we improved everything.

we used 50% fewer ingredients added one handed pumps and beat the top safety standards the new johnson's® choose gentle

and we have breaking news this hour on donald trump's former campaign chairman paul manafort. a brand-new transcript of a closed-door hearing in manafort's d.c. court case reveals how robert mueller learned about a critical development that could help him close the loop on collusion. nbc news national security reporter ken dilanian has been through the transcript and joins us now from washington. ken, what did you learn? >> nicolle, i've only had a

chance to skim it and my colleague tom winters is doing a deeper dive as we speak. there are a couple interesting nuggets in here. one is that remember it had been reported paul manafort turned over some internal polling data to oleg deripaska, the russian oligarch close to putin. we learned from this transcript rick gates, manafort's right-hand man, deputy chairman, was a source of information for prosecutors. there's also -- a lot of the argument in this hearing had to do with lies that manafort allegedly told about his relationship with a man named konstantin kilimnik, who as you know, nicolle, has been called a russian intelligence operative, somebody with connection to russian intelligence, by the mueller team. he was a translator, coordinated manafort's relationship with the russians and ukrainians paying him. there's a mention in here by manafort's lawyer that seems to suggest mr. kilimnik was advocating the lifting of

sanctions on russia. it comes up in the context of manafort's lawyer saying no matter who won the election, there was no chance that sanctions would be lifted on russia. that's a very debatable statement. as you know there was every chance they were not planning to lift sanctions on russia and it goes to the heart of what robert mueller is investigating. in general, nicolle, what this special counsel seems to be saying in this document the lies they say manafort told were in part to obstruct their investigation. and that's why they're throwing the book at him and instead of getting a year or two in prison, which he could have had if he fully cooperated, he could get as many as 10 or 15 years, nicolle. >> talk about what it means they're getting from and asking of rick gates. it would appear rick gates is a witness both on the central question about whether there was a coordinated effort, a conspiracy with the russians, russians have already been charged with meddling in our election. we understand from folks like you that we're following those contacts to see if there was a

plug in, in the trump orbit. what does rick gates provide on the collusion question, conspiracy question and you just talked about obstruction. >> yeah, i mean that's the $64,000 question. what's clear is rick gates is an incredibly valuable witness for them. manafort went off the rails but gates probably knows almost everything that manafort knew. they worked very closely together. and gates brings them this other element, he was the bookkeeper for the inaugural committee, a whole separate investigation being conducted by new york prosecutors. that's the reason perhaps there's no sentencing date for gates, he's continuing to cooperate and it's clear from this document he provided important information that could be a linchpin for any kind of charge related to collusion. the idea paul manafort was handing over sensitive polling information to a russian oligarch, no way that could happen. >> if you skimmed this, god bless you, you're smart. stay up with us -- >> loosely.

>> -- jeremy bash in on this. jeremy, i remember you blew my mind, and i said at the time you blow my mind, you described paul manafort one time as possibly being a russian plant. i didn't think you were crazy because you're brilliant. but the idea blew my mind. >> you were suspicious. >> i don't think like a russian but i'm starting to. i think it's time for rosetta stone class in russian. talk to me about not just development but take another run of explaining this development to my and my viewers, but this line in the investigation, what does it tell you mueller is seeking? >> the development seems fairly logical, first and foremost, rick gates is trying to get a lower sentence and save his own skin so he's dishing on things he saw inside the trump campaign. he obviously was privy to the fact paul manafort funneled polling data -- assumingly pro prioritiary analysis, not just public polling data, clue

konstantin kilimnik and possibly deripaska in the inner circle. there's not surprising. the second issue is schafrpgs t exchange the russians were asking for sanctions relief. and i think the $64,000 question to pick up on ken's thread here is less about who the plug-in was at the trump campaign. i don't think that's relevant. the russians made clear what they wanted. they wanted sanctions relief. the question is did trump uphold his end of the bargain in the fact he's resisted sanctions and has the most pro-russian policy we have ever seen from an american president. the conspiracy in some ways leads to a bribery motive, we will give you support and hacking and dumping of e-mails and provide financial support, but in exchange we need something donald trump, we need something from you. boy, did they get it. >> and here's the other thing that feels different with this development, mike flynn gave it

to them and mike flynn lied to the fbi about giving it to them. mike flynn got on the phone while president obama was still president, putting in place sanctions to punish russia for their actions during 2016. mike flynn got on the phone and affected their response to the sanctions. what other loops are closed? what other loop makes more sense in your analysis you gave us, jeremy? >> just imagine the mindset of the fbi squad that was looking at whether or not would uphold his end of the bargain. the only question would trump do what was asked to be done? literally days after the election day, days, hours, they in fact saw, they heard, it was revealed to them mike flynn was doing precisely what it was that they expected. then, of course, at the very end of december, i think december 29th when president obama sanctioned the russian

fredration and said we're going to kick out all of these intelligence officers and the entire jelgs community expected the russians to react ferociously as they would normally but in fact mike flynn was saying to them, don't react. we got your back. coming to coming to office in 20 days. was that the red flag he needed to go down and say we have questions for you. >> we know mike flynn lied. he got caught lying. we know trump tower meeting was not about adopss, it was about sanctions, we know there were contacts with russians about lifting sanctions. what is left to sort of flesh out -- what sorts of evidence remains needed to tie this all together? >> we'll know when mueller talks but this is a very big reminder, it's always been the third rail that caused all of the lying, caused flynn to lie. even today why was manafort basically lying when he had so much to lose, ten years as they say they took back? it was mostly about kilimnik.

the big reminder here, gates is out there, flynn is out there. mueller was cooperators and documents galore to actually catch anybody in exactly these lies. this is a hearing that he could have won. and we don't have the ruling yet but it sounds like he won't because mueller marshalled chapter and verse to say look at the lies he told. again, it was about kilimnik, as ruined a guy as manafort is, he's still scared, wary, too respectful to cross kilimnik. what that is about what happened before and the exact kind of deal jeremy is talking about is profound. >> i have to say as the one campaign veteran here, there's no normal reason for an american presidential campaign to give anything to russians or pro-russian people, not even a button. ken dilanian, as you keep skimming, keep your shot up and

come back talk to us if you learn anything new. after the break, surprise, surprise, russian tv with rave reviews once again for donald trump. funny how that keeps happening. welcome to the place where people go to learn about their medicare options... before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! well, you've come to the right place. it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by

unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why... medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. only about 80% of your medical costs. this part is up to you... yeah, everyone's a little surprised to learn that one. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. that could help cut down on those out-of-your-pocket medical costs. call unitedhealthcare insurance company now or visit aarpmedicaresupplement.com for your free decision guide about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. there are no networks or referrals to worry about. do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! see? you're able to stick with him. like to travel? this kind of plan goes with you anywhere

you travel in the country. so go ahead, spend winter somewhere warm. if you're turning 65 soon or over 65 and planning to retire, find out more about the plans that live up to their name. thumbs up to that! remember, the time to prepare is before you go on medicare! don't wait. get started today. to learn more about the range of aarp medicare supplement plans and their rates, call or go online today to request your free decision guide. oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance. has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family.

we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today. what russia took away was alarming. russians were cheering during the chief as julia pointed out. for the first time i can't real any other time that russia was not called the enemy. joining the damage is rick stangle, what gives? >> there is a whole he lab rate russian echo system. and it starts with the internet

research agency which is a control farm. the unclassified side what happens is putin's own kind of ideologs will get it out there. they love that we're monitoring and meanting on it. the regular media covering the stuff is how they get a lot of attention. >> what we saw, and they did in media around the annex sags was a template for what they did here. >> they have such a small audience it seems like it might

include donald trump. i mean, where else other than this krem min sponsored fuelled propaganda does it show up? >> it is a mystery to me. he is embracing the actual line on these things that no american has ever done, and in fact one of the things we saw in the campaign that i write about in the book is how off he mirrors them. >> i think there may be financial reasons that he likes russia more than other countries some of my friends say that we

are tough in russia in different ways. they use it internally to say look, they agree with us, they used it in hungary and other places in the world, but he is setting back the ability to lead in any democratic direction i think it is something they will have to take time to fix. >> i don't think that boou tin ever imagined he would have an american president using the same rhetoric. >> cow you don't think he was dreaming it when he was mowing the plot in front of what might be trump tower? >> it would mean that he would be friend him and embrace him

for the rest of time. >> you could chris sikrit critia administration for not doing more. >> two institutions that the russian federation fears, one is nato and the other is the intelligence community. it allows russian expansion. and they can often times wrap up intelligence activities. so when you hear the president or see the president tweet negative things about nato and the u.s. intelligence community, he is parodying putins rhetoric. >> thank you we're going to sneak in our last break, we'll be right back.

sneak in our last break, we'll be right back. erty mutual. they customized my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. and as a man... uh... or a woman... with very specific needs that i can't tell you about- say cheese. mr. landry? oh no. hi mr. landry! liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ let's see, aleve is than tylenol extra strength. and last longer with fewer pills. so why am i still thinking about this? i'll take aleve. aleve. proven better on pain.

but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened;

as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.

toddid i jump the press rele when i mentioned your book? >> yeah, he is real up set. >> thank you all, that does it for us. hello, nicole. >> if this is what a show news day is, we're slow today. >> if it is thursday, with great power comes great responsibility. good evening, i'm chuck todd here in washington. we have a jam packed show today. we have an exclusive here onset and a lot to talk about tonight with her and others on this