cathedral will host its first mass since a fire devastated the landmark almost two months ago. the mass will take place in a smaller side chapel. there will only be a few people in there, but already there's been a lot of talk about the rebuilding. that wraps it up for me. thanks for watching. "deadline: white house" with nicole wallace starts right now. hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in washington d.c. if you swapped in robert mueller for george steph not positianos mueller investigation may have ended differently. donald trump trashing don mcghan in that interview with abc news claiming mcgahn lied under oath when he told mueller's investigators that the president wanted him to fire the special counsel. >> he lays out a lot of evidence including the episode where you tell don mcghan mueller has to go, you call him twice, mueller

has to go, call me when it's done. >> i was never going to fire mueller -- >> that's not what he says. >> i don't care what he says. it doesn't matter. that was to show everyone what a good counsel he was. >> why would he lie under oath? >> because he wanted to make himself look like a good lawyer, or -- or he believed it because i would constantly tell anybody that would listen, including you, including the media, that robert mueller was conflicted. robert mueller had a total -- >> he has to go? >> i didn't say that. >> at this point, the president's lawyer's legal strategy is starting to make a lot more sense. when seeded with anyone other than sean hannity or laura ingram, donald trump seems to fall apart, he seems to lack the mental acuity and truth telling capacity to field real questions from real journalists. if donald trump had made those comments you saw to robert mueller, they would have

contradicted the testimony not just of mcgahn but half a dozen witnesses to testified to the president's plans to fire mueller. like chris christie, reince priebus and steve bannon. now the mcgahn smear comes on the third day of outrage in circles from donald trump's enthusiastic embrace of colluding with governments without calling the fbi. >> this time around if someone offers you information on an opponent, should they accept it or call the fbi? >> i think maybe you do both. i think you might want to listen. there's nothing wrong with listening. if somebody called from a country, norway, we have information on your opponent, oh, i think i'd want to hear it. >> you want that kind of interference in our elections? >> it's not interference. they have information.

>> poor norway. donald trump took his broom and dustpan to fox news for clean up this morning. but first, the twin clouds that have hung over donald trump's presidency since the beginning, questions about colluding with a foreign power and obstructing the investigation into the foreign power's election meddling have been thrust back into the news by none other than donald trump. that's where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. ashley parker, on set, matt miller. jonathan swan political reporter, politics reporter for the daily beast, betsy woodruff, and elliott williams, former deputy assistant attorney. matt miller, i have to start with you. i watched that and said wow what i thought made don mcghan a great white house counsel was

the judges. but if there had been an interview with this president and robert mueller, this is why people like rudy giuliani said they'd lay their bodies down on the train tracks before they let donald trump answer questions from mueller about the obstruction investigation. >> the president's legal team wasn't the "a" team or the "b" or "c" team but even rudy giuliani and john dowd figured out if he sat down with the special counsel he would number one, admit to a crime or two he would lie about it and commit a crime of false statements. someone said to me that george stephanopoulos got his lester holt moment. that's true, but all they did was turn on the camera and let him talk. these weren't hard questions that george stephanopoulos was asking. he said the russian collusion

front 2020, imagine if he can't take those questions how he would do against trained interrogators from the special counsel's office. >> i don't know it's right to say he can't take the question. i think the truth is he is more than collusion curious, he's collusion enthusiastic, would not call the fbi, so in the -- i mean, forget about for a second what happened in '16. in 2020, he's in. he's into it. norway, pick up the phone and dial, i'm here for you. and on obstruction, his testimony if he simply said what he said to george would have contradicted that of half a dozen over people quoted in the footnotes of the body of the mueller report. >> it would have been a clear false statement, a crime. it shows the trap he would have been in. he liked to say it was a trap the prosecutors were setting to me. he was in a trap by the fact he obstructed justice. he set the trap for himself. he couldn't give that answer because it was a lie.

but he couldn't admit to what he's done because that would be admission of obstruction of justice. he didn't do an interview for the same reason a lot of guilty people don't, there's no good way out of it. you go in and commit a crime or admit to committing a crime. >> we have new reporting from a source close to mcgahn, you write this, your source says, quote, anyone who believes trump wasn't telling don to get rid of mueller using these conflicts is stupid or believes in the tooth fairy. >> that was in response to what president trump said about don mcghan. i got this from a source about an hour ago. they also said that really nothing the president said, if you actually listen carefully to him, he sort of doesn't really contradict don mcghan. don mcghan didn't say president trump said go and fire mueller. he said talk to rod rosenstein and tell him these conflicts are too bad and he has to go. president trump denied saying

has to go. but you can see the way he keeps talking, he'll sort of say half a sentence and start going on about mueller's conflicts. he's not even fully denying those conversations with mcgahn. it's pretty messy. >> let me read what the mueller report writes about this incident. so mcgahn decided -- this from the mueller report about what has been thrust back into the public view not by the media, but by donald trump. from the mueller report, quote, mcgahn decided he had to resign. he called his personal lawyer, that's bill burk we know, and then he called his chief of staff to inform her of her decision. he then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter. burr said the president called don mcghan and fire the special counsel. that evening mcgahn called both reince priebus and steve bannon

and said he resigned, telling them the president asked him to do crazy -- bleep. he thought mcgahn did not tell him the specifics of the president's request because mcgahn was trying to protect reince priebus from what he did not know. consistent with what jonathan is saying but i think the headline under the section is donald trump's attempts to fire special counsel robert mueller what was investigated as an obstructive act was the attempts to fire robert mueller. >> yes, this was one of the more interesting and exciting portions got me back to being a prosecutor. one of the things we start the section with is we think don mcghan is a credible witness, after interviewing and talking to him we don't believe he had an incentive to lie. the statements are corroborated if you look at the footnotes, they all sort of build this narrative that suggests that don mcghan is telling the truth. we have no reason to believe

he's not telling the truth. >> let me add to mcgahn's credibility. mcgahn is complying with the white house edict that he not testify before congress risking criminal con tempt of congress if congress decides to head in that direction. >> the other thing that seemed efficiency and mueller points out, what was the urgency, notice it's before the 14th and the 17th of the month it goes down and the president wants it to happen on a saturday morning. so the idea that don mcghan fabricated this or is confused is foolish. every time the president opens his mouth he steps in it further on this. >> we should also put out that don mcghan continues to this day to be loyal to donald trump. the only two humans on the planet that have called don mcghan a lawyer are donald trump and rudy giuliani. and not even rudy giuliani, on all seven days of the week, seemingly just on even ones. >> what's important is everyone except for president trump that we know of who has direct

knowledge of the conversations that mcgahn had with the president concurs unanimously that one mcgahn said matches reality, there's not a witness that disputes what mcgahn said except donald trump, but is if iffy in the way he verbalizes it. taking a step back, one of the things that's really interesting is the fact that president trump's legal team shifted the way it talked about robert mueller when rudy giuliani came in. for about the last year of the mueller investigation there was this very aggressive sort of hyper active response to the mueller probe that showed a mark change from the first year. >> ty cobb and john dowd were working with them, they con joeled the president into cooperating, letting everyone cooperate, that was the legal framework that don mcghan spent 30 hours with investigators. and to rudy giuliani, and more importantly and less splashy was

emmet flood. so it was a significant change in their posture. i don't want to say the damage had been done, the truth had been told. they already had this information. i think it's remarkable, as you said that all you see is george stephanopoulos asking questions -- i'm not trying to take away from george's performance, it's masterful. but asking what's been public for months what's in the mueller report and trump falls apart, sort of falls between the cracks of what's been testified to and corroborated by half a dozen people. >> when emmet flood was first put in place a person close to him said that meant donald trump would never have a verbal conversation with mueller. that bore out. >> i want to show you the president's reaction to this line of questioning, calls george a wise guy. >> if you answer these questions to me now, why not answer them

to robert mueller under oath? >> because they were looking to get us for lies, for slight misstatements. i looked at what happened to people, and it was very unfair. >> you didn't answer questions on obstruction. >> wait a minute i did answer questions. i answered them in writing. >> not on obstruction. >> i answered a lot of questions. they gave me questions i answered them in writing. >> not on obstruction. >> george, you're being a wise guy, which is typical for you. just so you understand. it's very simple. there's no crime. no collusion. >> and nbc's peter alexander adding this reporting to our understanding of this now war of words today between don mcghan and donald trump. peter's reporting that a person close to former white house counsel don mcghan is dismissing president trump's comments to abc news where he disputes mcgahn's testimony saying, quote, it's not fantasy land.

so we have fantasy land, we have the tooth fairy. mcgahn pushing back more than he did the first couple rounds of smears against mcgahn. do you think mcgahn is someone who might eventually get battered enough to testify? >> i don't understand the sense in publicly attacking don mcghan. i -- i can't fathom it. i really can't fathom it. >> explain that. >> you're goading him into -- i know this is just what the president does and i don't think he's thinking about it in a strategic fashion -- >> because who should expect a president to think strategically. >> i don't believe he is thinking strategically. but is he just trying to goad don mcghan into making a public statement? i mean, it's kind of -- and now we're seeing, again, i wonder if it's the same source, but sources close to mcgahn we're seeing these very similar statements. i don't know.

i mean, i don't think this changes the calculus in the short-term about whether he testifies or not, but i don't see the sense in it. >> ashley parker? >> again it makes no sense. the president is getting dangerously close to almost pushing for an outcome that he doesn't want and wouldn't benefit him. you have don mcghan who is someone based on the mueller report and everything we understand, repeatedly actually saved the president from himself. and the president may not have liked it in those moments and, in fact, he didn't at the time we heard a lot about clashes with don mcghan and he didn't like don mcghan because don mcghan would stand up to him and give him the lawyer's point of view, it turns out in hindsight the president is lucky don mcghan was there playing that role. don mcghan only testified for those 30 hours you mentioned because he was abiding by -- you can disagree with if it's good or bad strategy, he was abiding by a strategy cooked up by the president's lawyers at the time,

and now he's risking possible con tempt to defy a congressional subpoena. he's not like these democrats, he's not the person you want to goad into finally saying i've had enough. that's not a savvy strategy. he's also one of these sort of figures in trump land with ultimate credibility. he's not a liberal's fantasy, not a whistle blower, he stands behind the supreme court picks. his legacy is this vast body of judicial appointments. his close ally in the senate is mitch mcconnell. he's not going to be this satisfying witness for the left and he's not, it would appear, anymore feel beholden personally to the white house. he is the ultimate truth teller, and if he simply testifies to what is in the mueller report on television, in front of cameras, it would be devastating to this president. >> it would be devastating but i think all the things you just

mentioned are the reasons why don mcghan is not testifying. the president keeps attacking him because of the last three or so years, the president has learned about the republican establishment he can beat them up, attack them, and they'll cave every time. from everything you hear, don mcghan and trump hate each other. >> isn't his integrity on the line, his reputation, and hasn't he testified in the mueller report to the truth? >> the place he cares about his reputation is with mitch mcconnell, the republican establishment and none of those people want to see him bring donald trump done. >> he would be the rare figure because he has those allies who could sustain telling a few minutes of truth of the garbage that went on in the west wing. he asked to write a foe any letter. >> he might or he might be an outcast in the republican party for the rest of his life. look what happened to justin

amash when he stood up and told the truth. his days as a hero of the republican party are probably over. >> i want to ask all of you about the wisdom of doing a network interview. how did all of this happen? >> do more. why? what are you doing? are you sabotaging everyone? >> help me help you. i hope you're next. >> i think there should be more of them, they're great. >> betsy? >> i agree 100%. >> keep talking. he's giving lawyers lots of work and i have a lot of colleagues that i think would enjoy seeing the president talk more because it's -- he is getting himself, ought to get himself in trouble every time he opens his mouth. we'll talk about the campaign finance stuff later but this was a treasure trove he opened up in the interview yesterday, stepping up to future offenses. so keep talking, man. keep going. talk to the reporters. >> even the cleanup seemed

problematic. let me play this clip from "fox & friends." >> if you don't hear what it is, you're not going to know what it is. >> that's right. >> how can you report something -- >> how do you know it's bad if you don't listen to it? >> they're saying he would accept it. if i don't listen you're not going to know. if i thought anything was incorrect or badly stated, i'd report it to the attorney general, the fbi, i'd report it to law enforcement absolutely. >> ashley, i said yesterday that that sound made my hair follicles hurt and it does. it's the listening that's criminal. it's not what they say. it's the conduct. i mean, we're two years in, the mueller report started, was conducted and it ended, and he still thinks that the contact and the conduct of listening to a foreign power is permissible is galling, shocking. >> not just that, but he seems really to be missing the point. he's basically saying what, if the opposition isn't devastating

enough, if it's inaccurate, won't hurt my opponent, of course, i would turn it over to the fbi. the point is as you said, it's not just the listening. it's the listening, the receiving of it. it doesn't matter if it's good or bad, what matters is there's a foreign entity trying to interfere in a u.s. presidential election, period, end sentence. >> ashley parker, what's your sense of how the white house feels about the wisdom of the abc interview? >> so two points on that. one thing that i think betsy and jonathan also understood and might find funny is we spend this time calling sources to find out what the president is secretly privately saying and thinking, and sometimes you turn a camera on and he says it publicly. there was a sense within the white house, i will say, even before the full extent of his comments were made public that they knew what he said was problematic. they knew there was going to be

some cleanup involved. you saw it, you saw people from the campaign coming out, and they're in a tough position because they can't say the president said something deeply problematic and that was a mistake. so they're sort of saying, that thing you thought you heard him say, he didn't actually say. >> so we're back to don't believe what you see, don't believe what you hear, and maybe we should get used to more of that? >> sort of. as the president said himself, it's not what i said, it's what i meant. >> buckle up, right. ashley parker thank you for spending time with us. after the break, a rare rebuke from the head of the country's election commission for president trump. the first debate spots have been selected. we'll show you what that will look like less than two weeks from today. and another lawbreaker in the president's midst gets a

pass. kellyanne conway accused of violating the law by the special counsel office and is still in donald trump's good graces while her potential legal troubles mount. all those stories coming up. s mount. all those stories coming up. the first survivor of alzheimer's disease is out there. and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight.

woman 1: this is my body of proof. man 1: proof of less joint pain and clearer skin. man 2: proof that i can fight psoriatic arthritis... woman 2: ...with humira. woman 3: humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further irreversible joint damage and clear skin in many adults. humira is the number one prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. announcer: humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. 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.

man 3: ask your rheumatologist about humira. woman 4: go to mypsaproof.com to see proof in action. wanna take your xfi now you can with xfi advantage. giving you enhanced performance and protection. when devices are connected to your home's wifi, they're protected. helping keep outsiders from getting inside. and if someone tries, we'll let you know. so you can stream, surf and game all you want, with confidence you can get coverage where you need it most. that's xfi advantage.

make your xfi even better. upgrade today. call, click or visit a store. the national security community reportedly reeling today in the wake of president trump's admission that he'd accept help from a foreign government in the next election. reporting from politico reveals the scope of the fallout quote trump's comments have undone months of work, essentially inviting foreign spies to medal with 2020 presidential campaigns

and demoralizing the agents trying to stop them. it has backed chris wray into a corner, putting him in a position he may have to publicly chastise the president, the fallout prompting the chairwoman of the election committee to issue a statement, tweeting, quote, i would not thought i needed to say this, but here's that statement, let me make something 100% clear to the american public and anyone running for public office, it is illegal for any person to soly sit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a u.s. election. this is not a no cyril concept. any political campaign that receives an offer of a prohibited donation from a foreign source should report that offer to the fbi. the table is back. i've worked on so many campaigns that it is surreal to me -- after you get this briefing you get the one about how you can't take anything from a pac or a

super pac or -- i mean, we are here educating the leader of the free world about election laws is staggering. >> i can't remember the last time i saw a statement from the chair. i think it shows the alarm that goes off inside the government when the president makes a statement like this. i think it goes to not just the president but all the people who work on campaigns across the country because you have people saying the president says it's okay to do this, and he invited foreign governments to interfere, not just russia, saudi arabia, united air of emirates. and you have people on campaigns, thinking okay. you have the chairman of the fec making clear, do not do this, you would go to jail. >> i was surprised when i interviewed jared kushner -- >> remarkable interview by the way, congratulations.

>> i said to him -- i asked him about the trump tower meeting and the email he received where there was an offer of help from the russian government and i said why didn't you pick up the phone and call the fbi, he said everyone is playing monday morning quarterback. i said, okay, fine. would you do it again? if you got another email for 2020 like this, would you call the fbi, he said, i don't know. it's hard to answer hypotheticals. people were fairly shocked by that response. then you have two weeks later the president saying, yeah -- explicitly saying he'd want to see it and receive it. >> and add brad pascale who said something something, and kayleigh mcinny that she took it as a directive, add rudy giuliani who days after the mueller report came out downplayed the results. and jared kushner before he sat with you said the meddling was

just a few facebook ads. >> the thing republicans on the hill don't understand is why the president can't say we don't want it. >> how about if you -- >> we don't want it. it's illegal. >> how about we don't need it? >> i think he said variations of that, but they just don't understand why he can't say a short sentence, no, we don't want it, we don't need it and we would report it. >> the president's rhetoric on this is really important because it's attached to how election security works. we've talked to tons of folks in dhs who work on securing vital infrastructure, including folks on the political side who say part of the reason it's been really difficult for that department to harden the defenses going into 2018 and now 2020 is because the white house doesn't care. if there's not buy in from the white house to do the sort of big, sweeping fixes that you need to take a complicated and vulnerable infrastructure system, particularly an election

system and harden that without white house buy in, even if there's tons of appetite within the department it's just really hard to do. so for the president to say this type of illegal foreign election meddling is welcome just sends a message to the folks at dhs, whose mission it is to make elections secure, that the president doesn't care. >> a source close to chris wray told me that the president wouldn't listen. really? it seems that chris wray and andrew mccabe said yesterday on this show he's in an enviable position, not just because the president is undermining his authority as the nation's top law enforcement official but the entire workforce heard the president of the united states say the fbi director is wrong. >> it puts people in the bureau in a difficult spot. at the same time we have to remember these are busy people

who don't often have enough time to spend ruminating over what the president says but senior leadership and the bureau, including wray, to have the president say this project you've been working on for months, more than a year now, is not only a low priority but the opposite of a priority for the white house is naturally demoralizing. >> let me show you how this played on fox news. >> there is no wiggle room with respect to dirt, with respect to opposition research because the federal election committee has decided in other cases that that is, quote, a thing of value. the phrase a thing of value. >> money or a thing of value. >> correct. it comes from the statute which prohibits receipt of money or a thing of value from a foreign national. >> so what the president said he would do to george stephanopoulos, if he did it would be felonious. >> correct. meaning he would be committing a felony and the person giving it

to him if that person was here and subject to our jurisdiction would be committing a felony as well. >> let's get this out of the realm of campaign finance law and talk like regular people. the idea of a music promo or the and a russian lawyer coming up and offering you campaign dirt is like a guy showing up at your house with a pick-up truck full of televisions saying these just fell off a tractor trailer but i'll give you one. you take it in your house, plug it in, watch your stuff on it, and a week later call the cops and say i think there are some tvs that have been stolen somewhere. >> they never did that. >> that's what i'm saying. the president is saying in the future maybe -- >> if the tv doesn't work. >> if the tv doesn't work. so let's be clear he stated he would do it in the future. the other interesting thing is what safed trump jr. from being charged is he didn't know he was

committing a campaign finance crime. >> stupidity defense. >> campaign finance crimes are more complicated than that -- >> but intent, you have to know you're committing a crime. >> reck sit intent is the term of the law. the president is on notice now, the head of the commission has issued the statement. george stephanopoulos told the president this is a crime p. so if it happens in the future we can't behind the defense we didn't know what it was, but let's put this in perspective, this is a test for christopher wray, the fbi director, and every other republican in the america, to not coddle the president are you going to stand up or not. >> is there any suspense in how the test ends? >> there's not. i came in the doj under wray in 2004. this is unfortunate to see but it's yet another person who's heard the intoxicating siren

song of donald trump and refusing to buck -- >> i don't know if that's wray affliction. i think wray falls under the category of public servants who's there because he thinks he can protect the institution he leads. i'm not offering apologies but i think they fall in different camps for a lot of the law enforcement and national security people, that's how it's been described to me. >> jeff sessions who is not one i'm quick to defend, he may have thought he was protecting the institution too. but still managed to get dragged into the president's web of insults and miscream. >> as jim comey says, he'll eat your soul. after the break, at long last we have the list, the democratic debate matchups, who's on stage with whom, which candidates get to challenge joe biden and the night featuring four of the top five. that story is next. four of the e that story is next

i love that music. we're 12 days away from the first democratic debate airing right here on msnbc a two-night throw down where candidates have the opportunity to challenge each other about policy, generational change, electability, likability and any other ability they can think of on stage for the first time. big news, our first look at the two groupings here's the first night's debate, it's booker, castro, de blasio, delaney, gabbard, inslee, amy klobuchar, beto o'rourke, tim ryan, elizabeth warren. and the next night, bennett, biden, pete buttigieg, kirsten gillibrand, kamala harris, bernie sanders, eric swalwell. let me start with you.

>> it's like if you're going to see a comedy show, like you're going to see dave chappelle, i don't care about the preview show, i want to see the main act. night two is the one that matters. it's not just because it has the bigger names. it has people closest to each other with the voters they're trying to grab. >> there it goes that second night is bennett biden booug gill grand, harris, sanders, hickenlooper, swalwell, yang. >> harris, burn knee and biden. bernie sanders bin fits because he doesn't have to be next to elizabeth warren. he's cratering right now. he didn't want to be on stage with elizabeth warren and have her finish him off. but also you have senator harris who's also been dipping in the polls and losing to elizabeth warren. so you have two candidates on the downswing with the opportunity to go after the front runner.

night two is a popcorn night. >> night one is also going to be good to watch. it's the first one, people are curious, it's prime time, elizabeth warren is surging right now, they're giving her a second look. at first i was like, man, she's not going to be on with biden, maybe her team might be disappointed. >> she'll be on with booker, castro, de blasio, delaney, gab bard, inslee, klobuchar beto o'rourke. >> she has so much energy when she's on stage, she takes over the whole entire room. now the thing is how is she going to do that, take -- bottle that up and be a strategic and smart debater which i think she can do. i think people are going to tune in for the first one to see what's going on, what's happening and taking a second look at elizabeth warren. >> i think it's ironic that the dnc went out of their way to try

to not have an undercard and got one anyway by chance. the first night is an under card other than elizabeth warren who's in the top tier of candidates. if i were her i would be pert b perturbed that you're left alone, don't get to engage with the front runners. there's something different about her and the other candidates that i'm not sure she needs to attack biden or bernie. because elizabeth warren actually has -- she has more of a unique message than the other candidates. the other candidates have to attack, she has to tell her story and share a message because she has one, which is not true of the other candidates. she can do that on night one or night two. >> she's central to the left's drive toward impeachment should they ever arrive there. she's one of the driving forces, not the only one don't tweet me, she's one of the driving forces. she called for the impeachment, she had the most succinct

summary of what the mueller report said. i think you're talking about her policy, she has piles and piles of policies, she's been driving the impeachment message, the laws were broken by donald trump in the mueller report in a way that's excited the democratic base. >> i'll probably get tweeted for saying this, she's sort of the ted cruz of the race. what i mean is she has the sharpest edge to her. she's never going to be outflanked on the left and she's got real -- like her policies have real meat to them. bernie sanders is very good at talking in high terms, in sort of sweeping themes. she sort of drilled down on every issue and calling for radical structural change. it seems to me again, you know this better than me, i'm not a student of the democratic party in the way you guys are, but there's a real hunger for the kind of structural change she's putting up and not having done it before, being a fresh face, not having gone through the

process and being sort of last year's news or last cycle's news has its own value. i remember covering the 2016 campaign and there is that sense that ted cruz had around him, where he was connected to the base, the activists loved him, he was fresh on the scene, and he did have detail and substance to the policies he was putting out there. >> and then on the second night it would seem that on the first night elizabeth warren really does maybe frame the substance of the debate. on the second night do you think it all becomes a biden pile on? >> yes. >> yes. >> absolutely. >> absolutely. he needs to put on some armor, it's going to be -- absolutely. >> people are going to try to pretend they won't first. that's the thing. >> that's a democratic thing. republicans -- look what happened to us, i'm not recommending it. don't try this at home. >> is kirsten gillibrand on the stage with biden?

there you go, here's the perfect, she needs a break through moment. she's defined herself as a candidate of women. >> women for women. >> my gosh, if she doesn't -- it's not hard to predict gillibrand's moment. >> and mayor pete is going to come after him as being for being old school. >> i said who's gonna be the john kasickasich, who's going t on the suicide run. i don't think bernie sanders and harris have to do that, they don't have to go after joe biden. they're going to make electability arguments. >> i think it's going to be about issues. it can't be ugly, personal, it probably will be ugly but it can't be personal. . >> personal? >> i don't -- i don't think the base wants that. >> i agree with you. >> i think there's a hunger for how are you going to move us forward? we are in a dire straight, how

are you going to move the country forward? what's your vision and policies? i'm hoping it does not get personal. >> let me ask all of you one question that keeps me up at night when i'm not worried about donald trump on twitter. joe biden i don't meet people in my normal life at drop off, summer camp, costco, who are unenthusiastic about him. not everyone is sure he'll be the nominee, not everyone is sure he should be. but they like him. what's the downside to being the pile up on biden? >> that he doesn't perform well. >> is there any danger in the democrats -- a lot of democrats outside of our line of work think he's their best chance at beating trump. >> if that's true, if he is the best chance of beating trump can be no one knows if that's true, that's his message. his message is i'm the best chance of beating trump and i used to work with barack obama. if that's true, the best way to show it is to beat the other candidates. you can only beat them if you

get in a fight with them. the point about the base not wanting to get ugly and personal, i hope it gets ugly. i want to see which candidate can throw and take a punch when they get in the ring with donald trump, they're going to take some punches. >> it's going to get ugly. i'm saying the personal attacks. they're going to talk about policies, the generational change, his policies of the last 40 years, that i understand. it's just like, i don't -- i'm hoping it doesn't get personal as to, you know, you're -- you know, your age or what have you. >> i will tell you this, two things. one i have the official, met the guy in the streets conversation. i was jogging this morning, 60-something-year-old white guy heard me talking about the debates on my cell phone with a friend. he's like you're going to the fish fry next week he's like i'm a 60-year-old white man and i don't think we need joe biden. the guy overheard me as i'm

saying this running on a lake. my friends are putting together bingo charts, they have anita hill, the first time somebody says i have a plan for that. people want to see these folks scrap. while people like joe biden there's a sense i'm picking up out there that people think he's entitled to this and may not work hard and a good scrap is going to show no, i want this job and i'm willing to fight for it. he needs it before he looks like mr. inevitable. >> last work? >> i don't have anything smarter than that. >> that's why i didn't say anything. after the break she's the woman that made alternative facts a thing. today she's in need of alternative facts of her own to escape the hatch act violations that a government watchdog group said should lead to her firing. that story coming up. r firing that story coming up ♪ (music plays throughout)

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the first survivor of ais out there.sease and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight.

this ijust listen. (vo) there's so much we want to show her. we needed a car that would last long enough to see it all. (avo) subaru outback. ninety eight percent are still on the road after 10 years. come on mom, let's go!

hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ it looks to me like they're trying to take away her right of free speech. i mean, she's got to have a right of responding to

questions. it really sounds to me like a free speech thing. it doesn't sound fair. >> so mr. president you're not going to fire her? >> no, i'm not going to fire her. i think she's a terrific person. she's a tremendous spokesperson. she's been loyal. she's been -- she's just a great person. >> so when you have a president with no regard for the law, you just might end up with aides with no regard for the law. the president ignoring the recommendation from one of his own political appointees, the special counsel, who said trump aide kellyanne conway's repeated violations of the hatch act are cause for removing her from her post. but someone's not letting this go. the house oversight committee announced they will hold a hearing with the office of the special counsel where conway will be invited to answer for her violations. chairman cummings releasing a statement that says this, quote, complying with the law is not optional. president trump should terminate ms. conway's employment immediately in light of these dozens of violations of federal law. allowing ms. conway to continue her position of trust at the

white house would demonstrate that the president is not interested in following the law or requiring his closest aides to do so. everyone is still here. i think i was talking about this during the break. if i talked about it on tv, i'm sorry to everybody. when i worked in the white house, you couldn't spend a nanosecond doing anything other than official government business. so if you had any occasion of contact -- i ended up going to the campaigns. i didn't have there situation for long, but you had a bl political phone and a political laptop. you did nothing. the lines were so stark. it's not just an obliteration of forms question. i think it's a real test of whether donald trump's teflon nature when it comes to breaking the law is transferrable. >> in this case at least, i don't know if it's politically transferrable, whether they'll pay a political price for it, but she's not going to lose her job. there's so much wrong with the president's argument around free speech. the supreme court has looked at the hatch act specifically and

made the point, everyone has the right to free speech. no one has the right to be a government employee. you don't have the right, as a government employee, to use government resources to attack a campaign opponent. and it is especially galling to me because you look at i think about pete strzok and lisa page, the two former fbi employees, who were in their own time exercising their free speech rights to talk about donald trump, not publicly, but privately, and have been accused of treason by the president for doing that. but i have another concern going forward. if kellyanne conway, if there's no consequence for her doing this, and appears there is going to be no consequence, there's nothing to stop the white house from hiring a new press secretary, reinstating the daily briefing, and using the daily briefing every day in 2020 to attack the democratic nominee from the white house podium with the official u.s. government seal behind them. >> and sell javanka's shoes and hats. some of the violations weren't just around political conduct. i think some of them were around

buy this, buy that. >> he repeat offenses were starting to attack from the white house democratic candidates, which is an obvious gross abuse of government resources and a vielgolation ofe law. >> rich painter was my ethics official, so i couldn't even have a soda by your colleague, who is a white house correspondent for "the washington post." >> was he trying to bribe you for stories? >> no. he did offer to buy me a coffee. the laws were so strict. i wanted to read some of what the hatch act says. kellyanne has been around politics a long time. employee means any individual other than the president and vice president employed or holding office in an executive agency other than the government accountability office. an employee may not use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election. it also forbids you from doing anything commercial. she seems to be guilty on both those fronts. >> right. and i remember when she did say

if she'd go out and buy ivanka's shoes and handbags or whatever it was, that sean spicer said from the podium she was being counseled about it. and i'm told when president trump heard about that, he's like, no, she's not. i'm not counseling her. that's great. >> i'm guessing he's not the counselor of choice. >> he certainly didn't agree with the idea that she should have been counseled for that. so the fact, just to echo matthew's point, the fact that they made such a strong recommendation, this was a political appointee. again, this is not some deep state. this is a trump political appointee who made this recommendation. they described it as unprecedented. the president has the discretion has to whether to fire her or not, but again, i don't know as a layperson what is stopping them, you know -- like what does stop the white house press secretary standing up and making statements about candidates that

he's against and making campaign statements? i mean if they know they're not going to be fired -- >> nothing. i mean the answer is nothing. >> does this hatch act mean anything, then? is there any -- >> not to them. >> it's about ethics and norms. i look back, there were members of the bush administration, the obama administration, there are other people who have been dinged for this. castro was sort of sanctioned for saying, hey, look, you're talking about campaign stuff. so it matters. but also it helps us sort of separate church and state so that you don't have kellyanne conway basically doing home shopping network for the trump organization whenever she goes on tv. the problem this speaks to, which is what has always been the issue, is it speaks to how the democratic party has absolutely no fear. they've elicited no fear in this administration. they can do this sort of thing, and trump basically says, come at me. i'm not going to do anything. >> i worked in the white house

office of political affairs under obama. i had three blackberries, a person one, a political one, and a white house one. they were in my pockets and -- anyway, look at the end of the day, it's a lawless administration like you were saying. he believes he's above the law, the rules don't apply to him, the law doesn't apply to him, and it doesn't apply to anybody that works for him. >> and the beat goes on. we're going to sneak in our very last break. don't go anywhere. we'll be right back. new shell v-power nitro+ premium gasoline has four levels of defense against gunk, wear, corrosion and friction.

that helps keep your engine running like new. it's fuel for thought. change has many faces. names you'll never know. the bright-eyed, the brave, the visionaries. where challenges exist, you'll find them. at citi, we empower people who are out to change the world. because tomorrow belongs to those who welcome it with open arms. citi. welcome what's next if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis, month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation

that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. 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. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira. the first survivor of ais out there.sease and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight. this is not just a headache. this is not just a fever.

this is not just the flu. it's meningitis b... and you're not there to help. while meningitis b is uncommon... once symptoms appear, they can progress quickly and can be fatal... sometimes within 24 hours. before you send your teen to college... make sure you help protect them. talk to your teen's doctor... about meningitis b vaccination. we're out of time. my thanks today to matt miller, jonathan swan, careen jean pierre and jason johnson.

and to you for watching. "mtp daily" with my friend chuck todd starts right now. if it's friday, president trump tries to say he did not say what we know he said about taking dirt from a foreign government. as he accuses his former white house counsel of lying under oath. plus brinksmanship in a very volatile part of the world. the trump administration is blaming iran for the attack on two oil tankers, and they say they have the video to prove it. and the stage is set literally twice over. 20 2020 candidates. we'll tell you which candidates will be facing off on each night of the first round of democratic debates. welcome to frid