the real challenges at home. they're not going away any time soon. >> my thanks to my panel. "mtp daily" starts now. >> missed the governor, i know he is always looking for me. thank you nicolle. if it is thursday, is today's episode being brought to you by the letter i? good evening, i'm chuck todd here in washington. after yesterday's testimony, michael cohen is back on capitol hill for a third straight day. this is the committee that michael cohen lied to and got charged for lying to, and remember he stephed yesterday that the president in his own

way encouraged him to lie to congress about the russia investigation. behind committee room doors, it could be wrapping up any minute now. adam schiff may start to retalk to reporters, the fallout from cohen's public testimony has been a mess. in the wake of his bombshells a consensus is emerging in the democratic party. >> based on what, looking at the text, and listening to mr. cohen, it aheres that he did. >> did it appear that the president committed a crime? >> did it. >> it appears he engaged in chimes while in office. >> he laid out a road map of

criminality. >> there is very strong evidence that needs to be further backed up that suggests the president of the united states committed a crime while serving in the oval office. >> but despite that consensus, democrats are not ready to move on impeachment even after he showed them a check that mr. trump signed himself. here is speaker pelosi at the very mention of the i word too. >> i'm not going goo that. we're all anxiously awaiting. the witness other issues that were under consideration. let's see what that is b but i'm

pea impeachment is a devisive issue. what is the unintended consequence if they choose not to go down that road, kacie hunt, the host of kacie dc, barbara mcquaid, stephanie cutter, also the deputy campaign manager there and knows quite a bit about the halls of congress these days, and danny. kacie. let me start with you. i assume the best you have been able to observe is the people

going in and out, do we have any clue what the tone as been in those hearings today? >> we're on he'sly stihonestly on it, chuck. most people are staying behind closed doors. this hearing is different from these interviews that were conducted before. you often didn't have that many members that were listening carefully to every single thing. it would large i will be staff. we could identify a couple members that became some of our better sources because they would go in every single time, and there is only a handful of them. obviously interest is bigger than that. congress has changed and adam schiff is now the chairman of the committee, and obviously for the details they're able to -- the topics they're able to cover a much wider breadth.

there is so much more about russia that is still on the table. in this kind of a setting. we learned things yesterday that they want today follow up on, chevy spoke after the oversight hearing today and we know x, y, and z. but to go back to your point about impeachment, do i think it is a pretty important one. as all of this is unfolding, the mueller report is still looming over the process. and democrats will have to make a decision in the event that the mueller report does not show clear evidence of an impeachable offense. it seems like a slam dunk in the political arena and i think that is what this is methodically working towards. if they have to make a case after that report is out there and they feel like they want to go forward with it this is how they're going to build it. >> barbara, it is interesting, there has been a debate, does

donald trump have more to freea from robert mueller or the southern district of new york. donald trump and his family will be haunting by the southern district of new york for perhaps the rest of his life and for a long period of time, but, mueller is probably still the most lethal political threat to the president. >> yeah, it depends on what southern district of new york is able to find. i agree with you in one regard, there is no way to fire the southern district of new york. they will not close shop and be on their way, they will be there for the duration of the trump presidency. he did business there for many years, there is a lot of fertile ground for them to work at for campaign finance violations and other business that president trump had. i think in that way they could be more problematic for president trump. if robert mueller is able to

find that the president or anyone in his campaign conspired with russia. our number one foreign adversary in the world, i think it is such a magnitude that it could be more problematic -- they are setting the bar. >> i found that most people don't write checks if they think they're involved in a crime. here is my part of the crime, so good luck with that one. we'll see what southern district of new york does, but generally speaking people don't write checks if they think they're just committing a crime, and then lindsey graham said there was no collusion, and unless there is russian collusion he is not interested. >> it is a very high bar they're setting, i'm guessing they're going to want to wait.

one is whether or not they believe that the president committed impeachable offenses, is it strategically wise to pursue. you're starting a process that will freeze everything else. what they want to do instead is follow up on the specific factual assertions that michael cohen made. he accused the president of committing bank fraud, campaign finance violations, that is what democrats will try to do next to is get their hands on his tax returns. >> i get the political, and then there is unintended consequences if you say some crimes the president commits, we'll just threat go because politically it is too hard. >> right, that's my point, we did it once and we argue that okay, we're going to continue to

let it go, right? to me in is the dill lep ma stefanp -- dilemma, stephanie. >> i think yesterday was the tip of the iceberg. i will pause here, let's see what michael cohen says at the microphone. >> there is not much i can say, it was very productive. i'm committed to telling the truth and i will be back on march 6th to finish up, there is more to discuss. thank you so much. sorry, sorry you had to stick around all day long. >> well, that was a nice little interlude, but i don't think it interrupts your thought. >> insurance fraud, tax fraud, perjury. they are opening up doors. they see that happening. it also feels like the doors

never end. it is not a standard set by lind si graham nap is what they're looking at the mueller probe for. whether or not it seemed to fade away we don't know. and the problem is when you want to rest your case on, you know, the guy that used to be the shameless u lying lawyer of donald trump, and is now the shameless lying lawyer for the democrats. >> chuck, you will interrupt me -- >> we may, kacie was giving unshot to see if she could drag cohen over to the camera. live tv, we're trying to make news in front of your eyes, did he at least acknowledge your question. >> they did, in fact they

thanked us for staying as late as we have today nap is how he handled the press in the last three days, brief statements, not taken questions. i think it is interesting. ten years of secucurscuring us. is he coming back to speak to who? is it just a house committee or all of the committees that want him back? >> so my sense based on what i just heard, but based on that it sounds like he will be back in the house intelligence committee. we were anticipating it would go later into the evening than it has, so that would suggest they have mor to cover with him and don't forget that this is one of the committees he is charged with lying to as well. they want to go back through those transcripts and give

members a chance. it would make sense to anyway this is the place he would need to come back to. >> you brought up a point of the issue of michael cohen and liar. and it is interesting because the republicans made it clear yesterday, but there are pieces of his testimony they want you to believe and it's like you don't do -- you don't -- you know, we put together a nice little mash here, take a listen. >> the first announced witness for the 116th congress is a guy going to prison in two months for lying to congress. >> lying to congress. >> lying to congress. >> liar liar pants on fire. >> you lied. >> pathological liar. >> lying other and over. >> skirting the truth is. >> cannot tell the truth. >> tax evader. >> convicted felony. >> narcissist, believe.

>> untrust worthy. >> you're not a nice guy. that was great work by our producers there. listen to the president very early this morning cherry picking a few things he would like you to believe. he is a liar but not about everything. >> he lied a lot but he didn't lie about one thing, no collusion with the russian hoax, why didn't he just lie about that, too, like he did everybody else. he lied about so many different things and i was impressed that he didn't say well i think there was constitution for this or that. he said no collusion and i was a little impressed by that frankly. he could have gone all out. >> is he a liar or do you believe him. >> he said i have my suggestion

suspicions. >> and a ratio of republicans attacking cohen's credibility, which is understandable and defending president trump. but they didn't really defend him. >> barbara, i'm sure you have dealt with that, a witness that flips, the defense says they're a liar, why would you believe anything they do, let me ask you simply, how do you then cherry pick what you want, does that under mine the defense. you want to look for corroborating evidence, so he gave the names of other people that might be able to corroborate the story. also documents, what are the documents that say -- that can support his testimony. one other reason that gives me

confidence in his credibility, is i think he is still angling for a reduction in his sentence. there is reporteding that he continues to operate with the southern district of new york. he can earn a reduction up to one year from the date of his sentencing. i don't know that he would earn credit for just testifying truthfully, but i bet if he lied before congress any deal would be off. >> barbara, i want to bring up one other point, two different checks, one was from donald trump's personal account. one was from an irrevocable trust. if they have a phoney retainer agreement in there, have they also committed fraud, i have to pause that question, when i come back you get to answer it, i have adam cheschiff at the microphone. >> good afternoon, just a couple

brief comments and then happy to answer a question or two. we had a long day but not a long enough day. we very much appreciate mr. coh cohen's cooperation. he will be returning on march 6th for additional testimony, and i think we all feel it was a very productive interview today. where he was able to shed light on a lot of issues that are very port to our investigation. and we were able to drill down in great detail. so march 6th will be the testimony, the following week on march 14th we had an interview with felix sader on trump tower. your expectations, not every hearing will be like the open hearing with michael cohen. we're going to try to do as much

as question in open session, some we can, some we can't. we have to look at these on a case by case basis, as well as equitie equities, but we're going to try to do as much as question in the open. so those are the next two scheduled interviews of the committee and with that i'm happy to respond to a couple questions. >> the statements made by michael cohen, what did you learn about that in about pursuing the trump tower moscow project. >> i will not comment on any of the substance of our testimony today, but we will be at the appropriate point releasing his testimony publicly. his testimony will be compete

and we'll have to determine any investigative equities. after his second session with us. i can say on a number of the topics that he testified on, we were able to go into great detail, but we also covered a number of items and issues important to us that were not the subject of the areaing yesterd -- hearing yesterdays. >> yesterday he brought documentation, did he bring any significant documents with regards to russia and the president? >> you know we are in communication with mr. cohen and his council about further document requests that we will be able to discuss at the next session. we also went through documents in our possession, dozens of documents in our possession with

mr. cohen and we have additional document requests that will be in discussion with him about. this will be the last question. >> he was fully cooperative. and he answered all of our questions, and this has been an excruciating. mr. cummings made the statement better than i that he needed to tell us the full truth, and none of the questions that we had for him one unanswered. >> well, he did give us one big piece of news, they're going to

have a public hearing in the next two weeks with felix soder. march 14th. that will be interesting, as he said it, he probably saw everybody's eyebrows raise. don't expect what you saw yesterday. still, felix soder, someone we have not seen before and his name pops up a lot when talking about mueller, barbara i want today go back to you. the question is has that put the trump organization, these checks, and the fact that these -- has it made it so that now the trump organization filed false tax return that's in turn is a crime. is this the type of unraveling that these checks could lead to. >> to disguise the payments as

income as opposed to campaign finance contributions, that could be important as well. campaign finance violations require willingful intent. that is the highest mens rea in the law. not just that you knew it was done but you knew it was illegal. so they often look for something that can be consciousness of guilt. we figured out how to hide or conceal what we were doing. that could be powerful evidence to prove to others in the trump organization that they knew they were committing a crime at that time. you always hear that the cover up is worst than the deed. so we may be seeing unraveling occur. >> i'm just curious, they said it was for a false retainer agreement, but they didn't

produce a piece of paper, they said we'll just disguise it, but they didn't write it, is it less culpable. >> if you can get people to agree that this conversation occurred, i think that proved consciousness of guilty that can prove the willfulness required. >> thank you for being our legal expert on this one. joining me now, joining the conversation, jerry continuenol. great to see you. you said to lawrence o'donnell last night that it appears the president committed a crime. let me just put up the constitution here, impeachment article two section two. the president and vice president and all civil officers of the united states shall will removed from office on conviction of treason, bribery, and other

misdemeanors. the constitution has a way to handle when a sitle president commits a crime, do you feel you're duty bound to follow the constitution or should the political argument be part of this process? >> i think is a little bit of both. i think we are moving into territory that is perilous for the president and cannot be ignored by the congress. however we have to build a case, that is what happened in water gate. it too nearly two years. you can't rush to judgment, you to have evidence based process that persuades the american people that this action may be in our future. and so i think we're about that, and yesterday's hearing was the first big step in that process.

>> i do think people hear the word impeachment and assume it is about whether or not he stays in office or nol. the impeachment process in the house is not about deciding whether or not he should leave office or not, but did he commit crimes and should he will charged with them and the senate decides if he should stay in office. how do you not, if you know he committed a crime, how do you not, you're the unofficial grand jury. you can't investigate him in office according to the justice department. what else do you do? >> one corruption, i don't knee it has to be a crime. >> no, it is whatever you decide it is. the legal and political process, but you can't -- the legal system can't pros cue him in

office. you're the grand jury. >> and would argue to your point, when you have evidence committed by a gentleman in the oval office, you can't ignore that. you can't sweep that under the rug. i they is why the president is in grave peril today. >> you know is interesting, you have implied that you think -- you believe it is political process. the public has to be on board on this, i guess the question is that if -- have you set the bar so high on russia that if russia doesn't produce it, you let all of these other sort of minor crimes go because the one that everybody thought you would be investigating did not have enough evidence to produce a conviction? >> i think we provided son

answers to that question yesterday. russia was not a huge part of that seven or eight hour hearing. by no means it was the essence of it. there was plenty of other activity that's came close to or across the line of being criminal. mr. cohen described it. your previous guest was talking about understanding -- they were looking for a conspiracy here. it was a conspiracy to violate the federal election law and that individualed individual number one, namely donald trump. >> your republican colleagues, jim jordan, and mark meadows were referred to the justice department for potential perjury. they said it had to do with that lobbying deal with that one foreign bank.

do you think he perjured himself. i think the opposite is true, he had nothing to gain by lying to the congress and everything to lose. what you heard is a man clearly reflecting on the last ten years of his life and said how did i get here? at one point he said i was where you are and how did it work out for me. you're taking a big risk, and i would say that to mr. jordan and mr. meadows. you hope that the house of cards doesn't just collapse sdplp do you think there is an unintended consequence if congress doesn't pursue this. it is up to the voters to decide if they want that kind of behavior in office. maybe voters knew going in that he wasn't the most ethically

topnotch kind of businessman they might have thought. what, if you don't pursue it, what kind of behavior going forward. it is the profound erosion in the institutions of our democracy. that's why congress take that's oath and he has to take it seriously. we have to protect the constitution. we cannot ignore evidence. >> jerry connolly, democratic from virginia, we'll be talking again soon. >> let me just throw it right here. it seem that's this is to me a dilemma that democrats have. what is politically convenient, they may be doing long term. short term and long term. >> what i think you just heard congressman connolly say is their duty as members of

congress will ultimately trump what they think their political benefit is and i think a lot of people watching that testimony yesterday were giving pause. this was on the front pages of over newspaper across the country. when i say that voters knew he was a tax cheat, a fraud, a liar, and he didn't get the majority of votes for president of the united states, so there is no political push back for majority of the american people to pursue these investigations. they don't want a liar, a cheat, or a fraud in the white house. >> this is why i think bill clinton survived and donald trump might survive. did voters know in 1992 that bill clinton was a fa lander? yes, do voters know that he probably cheated on his taxes

and -- they did. >> this is a, the word of michael cohen. not with standing his own professor, actually just a serial liar. that is number one. number two, what we're talking about with congressman connolly is maybe not the case. let me just say if you want to hang everything on that, i don't think politically or legally this will be a great winner for the democrats and i think nancy pelosi, the grown up in the room, actually sees that. >> but the argument that i think democrats have and some make privately is if you impeach him you're guaranteeing a trial and they don't have all of the information they want to bring to that trial. some of them really want their hands on the tax returns. there is already a dispute between democrats that want to move faster and more aggressively and those that want to be more caution. >> michael cohen gave more

reason to go after his taxes when he said i asked for the letter on the audit and i could not produce it. >> he specifically told the oversight committee under oath they need to view his financial statements and tax returns for evidence of tax fraud. >> if they're already doing impeachment, and we're just not calling it? >> i think we're all kind of saying the same thing. for a campaign finance violation based on stormy daniels, i'm not sure there is enough appetite yet. i think congress has a duty to have this oversight, and not just in the oversight committee, but the ways and means, all of the bread crumbs he gave yesterday, this is the beginning of oversight. we don't fwhee it is going to find, but like you said this is

about building a case there. i think nancy pelosi trying to quell this today, let's see what happens with mueller and oversight, we don't know yet. >> isn't this a risk for democrats? it sucks all of the oxygen. >> so again, it is, i get it, it is politically easier. democrats don't want impeachment, they don't want unsure pence, right? >> it takes two -- it took two years during watergate. one more point -- >> i have to pay for these coffees. >> the way that democrats handled the hearing yesterday, the way chairman cummings handled that hearing, it was a

respectable hearing. and i think you will see more than that. >> let me pause it here. what michael cohen says he is afraid of if the president loses the 2020 election. and the president leaves the summit empty handed and unites democrats and republicans. d unis democrats and republicans. at fidelity, we help you prepare for the unexpected

with retirement planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow. because when you're with fidelity, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.

welcome back i'm obsessed with life imitating art. at one point in the movie, the albert brooks character watches a news report and says the following. >> in 2016, presidential candidates said a lot of things about druch and michael cohen said the same thing, none of them were flattering.

>> mr. trump is a racist. the country has seen seen -- >> she a religion bigot. >> she a con man, a fake, a phoney. >> lining for mr. trump is normalized. he wanted me to lie. >> dishonesty is his hallmark. >> he is capable of behaving kindly, but he is not kind. the bullying is a toxic mix. >> he is capable of creating acts of generosity, but she not generous. mr. trump is an inigma. since taking office he has become the worst version of

himself. >> what is remarkable is how all of those republicans don't have a bad word to say about the president now. that is what an 80 mplus approvl rating in your own party will do for you. we'll be right back. will do for you. we'll be right back. walk it off look. one more mile look. reply all look. own your look with fewer lines. there's only one botox® cosmetic. it's the only one fda approved to temporarily make frown lines, crow's feet and forehead lines look better. the effects of botox® cosmetic may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness may be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow, eyelid drooping and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. so, give that just saw a puppy look

and whatever that look is. look like you with fewer lines. own your look with the one and only botox® cosmetic. we had some options. at this time we decided not to do any of those options, but it was a very interesting two days.

i think it was very productive but sometimes you have to walk. >> welcome back, president trump is on his way back from vietnam without any deal with north korea. he says that talks stalled and north korea refused to moth ball large parts of fair nuclear arsenal. the president is getting bipartisan praise for no deal over a bad deal, he is facing criticism for saying he believes kim jong un was not responsible for the death of otto warnbrier. >> he says he didn't know it happened and i will take him at

his word. >> a former national security council director for asian affairs. vick t victor, let me get the ott otto warmbier question out of the way first. there was more parade for the president to walk away from the deal, because it was a reminder that he seems to believe anything that says nice things about him. >>. >> yeah, it is really unfortunate. the president in 2017 was saying all sorts of things about human rights, invited otto's parents to the state of union speech. when it was raised here he acts like it is not his problem any more when it was just a horrible performance in that regard. >> does that have any bearing on negotiations going forward? is there any sort of strategic

reason that is why he would back off that we should give him any benefit of the doubt on? >> he is trying to protect the north korea leader and defend him. what we have seen through two summits is the bromance between them is not getting the country to give up their weapons. it became very clear today that the meeting in hanoi. we're just not prepared for what the north koreans put on the table and in the end the only thing that saved the president is that it was such a bad deal that the north koreans put on the table. so that saved him. >> do you think he wanted a deal and mike pompeo stopped it. >> it was pretty bad, on a scale of one to ten it was a negative five. the problem is that the president wants to do this all himself. he doesn't let his people do the

spade work to ensure that there is something that he can work with when he gets to the table and then you get outcomes like this. there was a lot of pressure on the summit to achieve something tangible. this was more important than the first summit and we got absolutely nothing. >> how do we expect north korea to respond to the president walking away. should we expect missile tests to come back? >> i don't think so, right now from all of the imagery that we looked at, the commercial imagery, most of the sites remain pretty dormant. they could heat up if the north koreans wanted them to do it. they have a dialogue taking place, but will we continue exercises with south korea, the president inpull sievely stops those in sing bore.

those are perfectly legal defensive exercises that duo to maintain readiness on the peninsula. >> there was a big sense of relief. >> the problem with donald trump is you never know what he will do. we don't have confidence that he is listening to advisors. we don't have confidence that his advisors are believed to be people that had his short, and donald trump doesn't understand what she doing. it looks like a one off material thing, but it should color our understanding of donald trump the negotiator. he doesn't know what he is talking about. >> stephanie? >> i agree. a united democrat and republican alike. >> on the hill it was like everybody said it was good he walked away from a deal. he wanted some pomp and

circumstance. >> i'm struck by the fact that there have been two face to face meetings and there is no path to solving the problems facing other leaders and he says that will not happen to me. the president will not give him sanctions relief without a concrete commitment that he can't walk away from in bad faith. >> the south koreans want the talks to continue, they clearly, thb is an administration, the moon administration clearly wants action, he wants relief, they want to do something here. does that mean they will ask the united states not to resume military exercise? >> that is possible. i think they would be in favor of not resuming. they were freaked out about what

happened last night. the sudden ending of the summit. >> they were upset that it ended, right? they wanted any deal. >> yeah they wanted a peace declaration and a deal. they're going to come to washington, they're going to go to the north koreans, the chinese, and try to pick up the pieces of this diplomacy. >> the south degree ykre koreang this in some ways more than the president. breaking news from "new york times" in the president's role to get jared kushner a security clearance. to get jared kushner a security clearance. doesn't cover everything ...only about 80% of your part b medicare costs. a medicare supplement insurance plan may help cover some of the rest. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company might be the right choice for you. a free decision guide is a great place to start. call today to request yours. so what makes an aarp medicare supplement plan unique?

these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp because they meet aarp's high standards of quality and service. you're also getting the great features that any medicare supplement plan provides. you may choose any doctor that accepts medicare patients. you can even visit a specialist. with this type of plan there are no networks or referrals needed. also, a medicare supplement plan... ...goes with you when you travel anywhere in the u.s. call today for a free guide. i had a few good tricks to help hide my bladder leak pad. like the old "tunic tug". but always discreet is less bulky. and it really protects. 'cause it turns liquid to gel. so i have nothing to hide.

always discreet. - did you know, the exact same hotel room can have many different prices? it all depends on where you look. - wait, you paid how much? - oh, dear! - well, this is awkward. that's why tripadvisor checks over 200 booking sites (cash register ringing) to find you a great price, and the hotel you want, so you don't end up overpaying for your room. no offense. find the right hotel room for the right price. ♪ hoo! read reviews, check hotel prices, book things to do. tripadvisor. welcome back as we said we have breaking news, last month we hear at nbc news reporting that security officials rejected jared kushner's security clearance but they were overruled. the "new york times" is citing four people briefed on the

matter, is that they were overruled by the president who got his son-in-law's security clearance. they basically wrote they supported the decision not to give him this top security clearance. this feels like a story of -- i think we always knew the president has the power to grant security clearance to anybody. we assumed that if he could not get his security clearance then the president would give it to him. now we have the receipts. >> i think the president just made the decision without thinking about the processes that people typically go through. he doesn't think like that. he doesn't view those as an obstacle. whoever leaked this may be speaking to the history books here. >> don mcgann, john kelly, two people not there any more, who throughout this whole time, don mcgann clearly was never comfortable with the mixing of

the personal and the professional and the white house council's office. >> i will say having worked in the white house for a very long time under two different presidents that if presidents, that if that happens, in the white houses that i worked in, i can't imagine the chief of staff or the white house counsel not resigning. if the intelligence agencies are not giving your son-in-law a security clearance, there's a reason. and they know what that reason is. so the fact that trump overruled them and gave it to him and they did nothing wing that's a big problem. they might be trying to cover their butts now, but -- >> how significant, danny, in your mind? >> so, you know, the backstory in washington on this is that security clearances have become crazy. it takes more than a year for a lot of people to get security clearances and so there's a sense of the environment that this process isn't working. and you know, donald trump's kind of a make things happen

guy, you know! the system isn't working, i'm just going to cut through it. the question for me that remains with the gahn and the kelly memos that supposedly exist to "the new york times" is when is the balance in this administration going to change? and the more people decide that donald trump -- everything donald trump is doing is a liability to them, then the people who think that what he's doing is important enough that they should remain -- >> you just pointed, this is -- the more former staffers there are from the trump white house, the more blockbusters stories we're going to see like this, sahil. >> and the other question is, why did he have this much trouble getting a security clearance. i think there were an unusual amount of updates to the forms that you submit to put all of your information. i think there are people who served in the white house. you will know better than me on this, who say it's extremely unusual to have to update this so many times. was that the reason or did they see something there that made them, you know, uncomfortable getting a security clearance. >> to be denied a security clearance, there has to be

something pretty -- >> but look, he was trying to get a very high-level security clearance, for what it's worth. >> we should even be more concerned, then, that he was granted one. >> let me play devil's advocate. he's the president's son-in-law, whether he has the security clearance or not, so isn't he a vulnerability no matter what? he's a security risk either way. >> well, i agree with that. however, if you don't have a security clearance at the top secret, then you're not sitting in national security meetings. >> you're not doing milly's piece, are you? >> you're not negotiating with mbs. >> he can't play the role that he's been playing. this is the dilemma inside the white house, for sure. >> i want to bring up one more point, because michael cohen said something in his closing statement yesterday that, it's not a new idea, but it's not been uttered very often. take a listen to what michael cohen said in that concluding statement. >> given my experience working for mr. trump, i fear that if he loses the election in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful

transition of power. >> so to some, that's going to sound alarmist and dramatic and overly dramatic, and then you say, well, michael cohen knows how donald trump acts and he never can ever admit losing and he never -- you know, you can picture a scenario where he would struggle to concede. >> well, firstly, this is pure speculation from michael cohen's part. yes, he's looking at the man he's known for a while and guessing what might happen. ly say, in the final days, final weeks of the 2016 campaign, i went to a bunch of president trump's rallies, and he stoked this feeling that if he loses, it would be a stolen election, that the system was crooked and rigged and all sorts of adjectives that he used about it. and a lot of people did believe, polls showed this , a lot of people did believe that if they were to lose, that the election would not have been on the up and up. >> i am worried this is becoming self-fulfilling. meaning that we so spin ourselves up on this stuff, that actually you're going to have

supporters on each side not wanting to ever concede. i say this just out of where we are in our politics. >> but isn't this just more broadly, stoking this loss of faith in institutions, loss of faith in our system of government. and trump has been a big part of that, but this has been a process that's been ongoing. people don't trust the government. they don't -- you know, your little book. they don't believe that the little constitution in your pocket there is something that matters to people anymore. and so donald trump doesn't have very far to go to light that fuse. >> and this is the scariest possible loss of faith in institutions that we could imagine. you know, people not accepting the legitimacy of an election once it happens. for all our problems, we have at least -- >> i thought it was very clever yesterday, that elizabeth warren found as a way to insert herself in the story, and i always find it interesting for presidential candidates who are struggling -- if the story is not in their lane, and none of the presidential candidates can break through the cohen world, but she put out a tweet to say,

she'd never pardon the president. but it's almost like, all right, now she knows she's going to make every presidential candidate answer that. >> is anyone surprised? >> and probably it's driving donald trump crazy. >> right, but at the same time, there's like no democrat that can make the intellectual argument to say, look, can we wait and see? you can't wait and see, can you? >> well, i think it's a pretty safe call that none of those democrats would be pardoning donald trump. >> i don't think anyone was holding their breath for a president warren pardon of -- >> people don't want to move on. >> but she is pushing his buttons here. she has repeatedly said in e-mails and public that the president might not even make it to 2020, that he might go to jail. she knows what she's doing. >> she's trying to get under his skin the way he tries to get under her skin. >> i would argue, she needs to find out a way how to win a fight with trump. the perception is she got into one twitter war with him and lost. so she does need to get in another war with him and prove that she can take him on. >> well, just wait until there's evidence of insurance fraud.

>> there you go. stephanie, sahil, dani, thank you all and we'll be right back. you all and we'll be right back. you might take something for your heart... or joints. 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.

well, that's all we have for tonight. i do have one piece of breaking ne news. there will never be a statue of bryce harper at national park in washington, d.c. and bryce, we love you, man, but dude, philly?! philly?! seriously?! they will never love you the way washington would have loved you.

anyway. i hope you enjoy third place. "the beat with ari melber" starts right now. good evening, ari. >> dwoogood evening, chuck. thank you very much. we start tonight with michael cohen wrapping up his third day of capitol hill testimony, meeting with house investigators. this one ran over 7 1/2 hours and there are promises about being back next week. >> not much i can say, other than, it was a very productive. like i said, i'm committed to telling the truth. and i will be back on march 6th to finish up. there's more to discuss. >> there you have it. an announcement late today, that is a piece of news. the aftershocks from cohen's earthquake testimony have continued to reverberate across the date. there are investigators who say this means, what cohen said under oath, and if the republicans fact checking him want to really get to the bottom of it, well, this means we're going to have to hear as a nation, as a congress, from a lot more people who are close to trump. the oversight committee now saying they want to discuss all