department's investigation into russian meddling. it's a move that two former national security officials tell me today is deeply suspicious in terms of timing and on its face deeply suspect in that it seems to lack any predicate. but we start with the president's impeachment. investigation that many suspect the president and his allies hope to distract us from with that leak of a criminal probe. nbc news today reporting on a possible bombshell in the impeachment investigation for the first time in this country's history a president's own national security adviser could be a witness in the impeachment investigation into him. nbc news reporting former national security adviser john bolton's lawyers have been in contact with committee officials amid reports of ongoing negotiations about a date for a closed-door depositions. investigators have already heard about bolton's concerns about the hijacking of ukraine policy for political aims through the testimony of one of bolton's top

and most trusted deputies, fiona hill. she said bolton called the administration's actions around ukraine a, quote, drug deal. but hearing it from bolton himself could be a game changer. bolton is also the white house official who sent one of his deputies, hill, to report the misconduct of other white house aides to the white house counsel's office and through the testimony of hill we know that bolton expressed himself sometimes in colorful terms. at one point describing rudy giuliani as, quote, a hand grenade who is going to blow everybody up. politically speaking, hearing from a conservative fixture like bolton could represent a light-out moment for donald trump on process and on substance bolton's participation in the impeachment inquiry could seal donald trump's fate as the first president in this country's history to be impeached for conditioning military aid for an american ally on political dirt on a

domestic rival. and as dramatic as it would be, boltop's potential testimony may not even be necessary from the perspective of evidence-gathering. a crush of witnesses have corroborated the original whistle-blower complaint and when taken together with the president and rudy's own admissions, the picture of aid for dirt is clear as day to a majority of the public who now support the impeachment and removal of donald trump. "new york times" reports on what may come next and it could get worse. quote, democrats have moved with remarkable speed to investigating closed-door sessions the president's actions. now the party's leaders in the house are preparing for the next stage. high-profile public hearings that could begin as early as mid-november and feature hours of testimony damaging to the president. that is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. on capitol hill, senior washington correspondent for politico anna palmer. also joining us former assistant director for counter

intelligence at the fbi, frank figliuzzi. with us at the table phil rucker, white house bureau chief for "the washington post." alexi mccammond. plus nbc news correspondent cara lee. cara lee, i believe you have participated in some of the reporting on john bolton. what's the latest? i was struck, and we did this research today. there is not any precedent in our short impeachment history in this country for a president's national security adviser, who in a normal white house is a person who logs more facetime with a normal president, i don't know if it's the case in this white house, than just about anybody as a witness in his impeachment. >> yeah. it's really extraordinary. and john bolton did spend a lot of time with the president. towards the end there was a bit of a falling out, but for a large part of the time that he was in the white house, he was by the president's side every day. and it would be remarkable if he does indeed testify. and all suggestions are that he will. i think one of the questions is whether he would want to do that publicly or do it privately or

both. but any public appearance by him would be potentially devastating to president trump. at the same time, you know, he's still a republican. it's not like he's going to be a michael cohen and turn into the democrats' arms. so it's a dangerous thing for the president. at the same time he's not the kind of witness that's going to just, you know, do everything that the democrats want a witness to do in this instance. >> that would seem to be though it makes him the most dangerous witness. he's not going it be on capitol hill as any -- i mean, no even fantasy from this white house could depict him as any sort of deep-state actor. he's a conservative's conservative. what would be a real spectacle would be to watch fox news cover john bolton's testify. he doesn't need to testify as a republican or democrat. if he simply testifies to the truth of what we already heard to have been his alarm to mick

mulvaney and rudy giuliani's hijacking of policy. >> i think that's the line he would be on is just what he saw, what the facts are, what he witnessed, what his impressions of that were. but, yeah, certainly he is somebody who's well known. he was a fox news analyst for a long time. he has a super pac where he is supporting a number of republican candidates for congress. and, you know, what we see here though is this picture merging where you see the democrats kind of go around the edges to some of the agencies and they are getting closer and closer into the white house. next week we are expected to see two current national security council officials testify, which is extraordinary in and of itself, and also john bolton's deputy who's no longer in the white house. you can envision they are going there. and obviously john bolton would be the next step because he saw everything. >> it's unbelievable, phil rucker, how quickly this has all moved. i think it was two mondays ago

that the testimony of gordon sondland was blocked. and it ended up happening that thursday. but the stonewalling campaign from this white house sort of came and went. now as carol lee just reported, there are two -- i mean, nsc officials are white house officials no matter how you slice or dice it. >> and now two officials, at least one, tim morrison expected to corroborate what is to date the most devastating and damning testimony of bill taylor. >> it's extraordinary that stonewall has basically crumbled. a few weeks ago pat cipollone issued that scathing letter declaring effectively that the federal government would not participate, the executive branch would not participate in this impeachment inquiry, would not provide the documents that the members of congress are seeking, would not allow administration officials to testify. and one after another they are defying the president's wishes. it is enraging the president. but it also makes people around the president fearful for what these people will say. they can't be easily discredited

as former officials or people with an ax to grind. they're currently serving in the government in the national security council as these two officials are. and bolton, just to underscore carol's point, is such a critical piece of testimony if he were to come forward. he's also a master of the bureaucracy. he's been in the bureaucracy through so many administrations. he knows all the levers of power. he knows how to basically provide a road map to the impeachment investigators about how the bureaucratic system under the trump administration works and how these decisions are supposed to be made and how they were made in improper ways. >> there is something interesting about bolton, too, in that he annihilates any attempt from, you know, the -- i don't know what to call them other than sort of the pocket protector brigade. most of them had access to the skiff that they were storming. those are all, unfortunately, men on the republican side who

know john bolton, have known him for much of their careers. the notion that they are going to be able to sort of lump him in as any sort of deep state plot against this president is ludicrous on its face. >> in some cases he is supporting these folks for re-election. he has a super pac as carol just laid out. he has his own sort of brand on the conservative right giving speeches, motivating grassroots activists, raising money on behalf of republican candidates. they are not going to be able to cast him as some, you know, unelected radical bureaucrat the way stephanie grisham described ambassador taylor. >> which is still just an appalling smear even for this white house. there is something about the vivid nature in which bolton has already spoken to the committees and to the public. i think this is where you see this softening among independents. it'll have to do with descriptions like rudy giuliani as a handgrenate. >> i think that we are seeing

national security officials or john bolton coming forward. it reflects the sense that these folks have to expose these things. and it eats away at the narrative that they are trying to build that this is a witch hunt, whether they are storming the skiff like yesterday or demanding to hear more from the whistle-blower to cross-examine that individual. that's what's interesting. if these republicans who are placing so much weight and clout on this whistle-blower because they want to drag that person through the mud and paint them as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about and make them discredited or not credible, if they are not placing that same sort of value on someone like john bolton or the national security officials who have first-hand knowledge of what's actually going on, then that calls into question the entire sort of way in which republicans are approaching this thing and almost making it more of a political witch hunt than they think democrats are doing. >> that's an interesting point. anna palmer, tim morrison, the next official expected to appear on capitol hill and corroborate

what is to date i believe the most devastating testimony delivered, the most direct link both to the president and the quid pro quo of military aid for political dirt on the bidens. what are the -- is he viewed there as another corroborating witness? is he viewed as, you know, a third or fourth confirmation on the fact pattern? what is the expectation for his testimony? >> i think we won't know exactly until he does testify. but certainly the expectation is that he is going to, for democrats, put another brick in that wall that they are trying to build in this case towards impeachment. you know, very serious person, has been on these issues for a really long time. i think it gets harder and harder for republicans to try to say that these are kind of deep state actors. i think what is going to happen though is truly going to be the next real phase i think for capitol hill where it shifts when it goes to the public's sphere.

i think even if you think john bolton and others testify behind closed doors, republicans are going to stay on their same talking points about that. but as soon as it becomes public, that's when it becomes kind of -- it's going to be very interesting to see how republicans can try to pivot on this. >> and, frank figliuzzi, on this idea that there could be a pivot after john bolton testifies if it happens to be in public. here is some of what he witnessed. this is from the "new york times" report. sondland, the e.u. ambassador got agitated and let out that there was an agreement with mulvaney that there would be a meeting with ukraine opened up the investigations the white house was seeking. mr. bolton immediately ended the meeting as the group moved toward the, do sondland said he wanted them to come down to the ward room to discuss next steps. bolton pulled ms. hill aside to instruct her. he subsequently in the drama

that bolton could describe inside the west wing. >> let's let this soak in for a moment that we may have reached the point where the president of the united states is so off the reservation that even someone like john bolton, even someone who adheres to extreme ideology and postures can't take it anymore and feels like it was inappropriate. and if you hear from someone like that in a deposition or even in public testimony, cannot ignore it. and where i think this is going, nicole, is that the gop defense of trump will have a shelf life. they will be unable to sustain this process-oriented defense, this defense that they're attacking the credibility of good career public servants. that has a shelf life. that can't keep going once the facts take over. and when someone like bolton

testifies to his dismay over potential unethical or illegal activity, trump loses, and he loses big. >> i want to switch topics with you, frank figliuzzi. a judge ruled today that congress could and would have access to the grand jury material from robert mueller. what does that mean, and how might that bolster either the questioning or the impeachment process? or do you see them as parallel sets of facts? >> this is potentially explosive material that we have yet been able to get our hands on. one of the potential explosive issues, nicole, could be the actual mindset of the grand jury. there's been many of us who speculated that the grand jury may have turned to mueller and his staff and said where is the president of the united states? we need to see him in this grand jury. why aren't you calling him?

and if we see that come out that citizens like you, me, and voters actually sitting on the grand jury trying to figure this thing out, said to the prosecutors we can't do this without hearing from the president, that's explosive material. >> and that's the substance of it, phil rucker. but it would seem that the politics of this, it's sort of another brick in the losing wall, right? it's another loss. this was material that the white house and the white house counsel's office certainly didn't want out in the public arena, especially at a time when public support is moving in one direction and one direction only and that's for his impeachment. >> and the problem politically speaking for the white house is that the facts that keep emerging are not on the president's side. so what they have to deal with here is an argument over process. or the testimony's happening behind closed doors, adam schiff made up a quote. they are finding any vulnerability in the process they can and they are using their power in the executive branch to withhold documents and

withhold testimony. and the democrats keep pushing through that. they're compelling witnesses to come forward. they are going to move into this public phase now where there will be public hearings with an explicit aim to try and move public opinion even further in favor of impeaching the president. and this is a war that the white house is not equipped to win because the facts are not at this point on the president's side. >> there's nothing unique though. let me just confess that in my time as a republican communicator, i also had to resort to process when the facts weren't on my side. let's just take apart the process. so the whole scam of all those guys going to the skiff that a lot of them had access to was because it was happening behind closed doors. well, then i expect them to cheer and celebrate and i invite them to sit at this table the first day of public testimony, donald trump's impeachment trial. i mean, is that what they say they want? >> i heard from one republican congressman, and it's will herd who is consistently a voice

against president trump. that tells you everything you need to know. the people who have already spoken out against president trump want this to be public. they want to hear from rudy giuliani himself. they want the american people to have access to these facts. but as phil says, the facts are not on president trump's side. that is where he thrives when he can muddy the waters and throw out these generalizations and confuse the american people with all his noise. this goes back to the obama birther conspiracy. he didn't need the facts. he didn't want the facts, despite launching that egregious claim against the president and that has followed him through his political career even in an impeachment inquiry. he doesn't care about the facts. and republicans who will be his sycophants don't want the facts either. >> what's really remarkable about this is everything is moving so fast and the white house still does not remotely have its act together in terms of how it's going to message on this and what they are going to say and, you know, your president's saying, well, i am the team and lindsey graham is like well they are trying to put

things together. the train's out of the station and they just have not been able to figure out how to respond to any of this. >> and on that point, the white house is still fighting this old war about the whistle-blower which seems to have been had. i went through the whistle-blower complaint. i was on live tv when it came out. >> it was so dramatic in the moment. now it almost reads like no duh. i mean, it's all either being confessed to by donald trump, confessed to by rudy giuliani or revealed in testimony from ambassador sondland, taylor, or former nsc staffer fiona hill. >> yeah. it's pretty stunning. i remember when that came out and all of us were racing to read it and it seemed so dramatic, this was going to be the smoking gun. now when you have this testimony and people actually coming forward who are very credible, putting their name to it, it kind of pales in comparison. but i think what's pretty crazy is just how this white house has not moved faster. they are still, as you said, kind of fighting this whistle-blower complaint when

they aren't kind of up to speed, they don't have a war room, you know, when you think about what happened around brett kavanaugh and the supreme court fight, they had, you know, a hundred people and they had surrogates and talking points and they were just so much more adept at fighting this. and it really feels as though everything is coming from the president and he's not relying on any staffer. nobody's been able to have the ability to say, listen, we do actually need a rapid response team. we do need more than you just going on twitter responding to what's happening in realtime. >> well, let me just press you on that. what would they respond to? how do you respond to yourself? everyone testifying against the president was part of the president's staff who watched the president and rudy giuliani hijack foreign policy for political aims. i mean, what would the response even look like? >> i mean, i'm not an adviser to the president, but i do think that you have republicans who are willing to go out on television, whether it's lindsey graham or matt gaetz and they

feel like they are still kind of fighting the fight of a week ago instead of the messaging point they want to get across. they are going to be moving into this public phase. so process, process, process has been where they're at. but what is going to happen once this process is in public view? we have not seen an argument yet about how this is unfair to the president once they actually do have hearings. >> and important to just always add that not a single person inside this white house or aligned with the president has disputed a single fact as detailed in the whistle-blower complaint or as detailed by any of the diplomats who have testified or by any of the nsc officials who have been on capitol hill today. anna palmer, thank you for spending some time with us. when we come back, the democrat points out that if a single fact supported the president's claim that his call with the ukrainian president was perfect, it would've leaked by now. and william barr is donald trump's political fixer, former

national security investigation says it doesn't add up and worried it could leave us defenseless against russia. and saying good-bye to a legend. >> the honorable elijah e. cummings. this is a title that we confer on all kinds of people who get elected to public office. we are supposed to introduce them as honorable. [ cheers and applause ] but elijah cummings was honorable before he was elected to office. [ cheers and applause ] there is a difference. ther, goldi knows to never compromise. too shabby!

too much! too perfect! i can rent this? for that price? absolutely. what is this, some kind of fairy tale? it's just right! book your just right rental at thrifty.com. oh! baby bear! mornings were made for better things than rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis. when considering another treatment,

ask about xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. it can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. ♪

ask yourself why no facts favorable to the president have leaked from the republican side. it's not because they don't leak. it's because there aren't any. >> it's because there aren't any. eight witnesses and counting have provided testimony in the impeachment inquiry. each one has corroborated one or more of the allegations in the whistle-blower complaint that started it all. and none, not one, has exonerated the president on any count. a reality apparently not lost on this white house. "new york times" reports today, quote, privately white house officials concede they are losing the messaging battle with democrats. and axios is reporting that despite the insistence by white

house officials, they have no need for a war room in their fight against impeachment. a de facto war room has been established after all. quote, for the past several weeks, senior trump white house officials have held a near daily meeting. almost every morning around 10:00 a.m. there is an impeachment messaging coordination meeting in either the sit room or the roosevelt room. joining our conversation, "washington post" columnist and msnbc contributor eugene robinson. i just -- i mean, this is your reporting i want to press you on what they talk about other than the mess menu. but, one, i think we are talking -- and i, again, i know this. you talk about a message problem when you have a substance problem. they don't have a message problem, they have a fact problem. >> the message will take care of itself if you've got the -- >> i know how it ends, badly. >> dick cheney used to tell me

and dan bartlett that the problem with iraq was the message. we were like really. [ laughter ] >> that wasn't actually the problem. and that's why these problems stick around. they persist. they mount, you know, because that's the problem, and it's not just what you're saying about it or what tone of voice you are using or what, you know, what frank lundst sort of approved words you are using. it's the substance. that point that was made about what has leaked from the testimony is actually the most relevant point because you know that if anyone had come in and cleared the president of doing this and said it never happened and it wasn't that way, and there was no extortion, there was no quid pro quo, it would have leaked in like three nanoseconds. >> look at all of the classified material that's been released in the service of donald trump's political aims.

fisa applications over the objections of fbi director chris wray. they leaked the carter page fisa application with rod rosenstein's signature on one of them. the most secret stuff in the government, alexi, comes out, if there is any shred of a hope that it could exonerate donald trump. there is nothing, nada, silence here. >> they are so focused on the politics of this. these meetings are not about the legality of an impeachment inquiry. it's about the political side of that. and the conversations they are having real to us that the most crucial metric for them is support amongst president trump. so they are talking about themes that break through on tv, social media and anything that might affect his standing with republicans on the hill and the senate specifically. and of course who is coming to the hill to testify and speak with these folks who are crucial to these investigations? it's not about the legality. it's not about potential lines

of attack that could, you know, push this narrative that the president should be exonerated of any wrongdoing. it's simply to keep the strong hold on the folks in the senate who would support him and otherwise decide his fate if and when this moves to a senate trial. >> and you guys have some reporting about how trotting out some of the mueller tactics, maybe they're next sort of move. but it would seem that trying to muddy the waters. you've got john bolton calling rudy a hand grenade. >> there is a move inside the white house to try to connect what's happening on capitol hill with ukraine and the impeachment inquiry with the impeachment inquiry happening at the department of justice and to the origins of the russia investigation and to muddy that and to connect it and to show some wrongdoing and basically confuse people. that's why democrats, i think, are so focused on making this public stage, the next stage of the impeachment inquiry where witnesses can come forward and actually speak directly on television to the american people to help everybody really understand what's going on.

>> but, phil, is the white house capable of thinking beyond today's news cycle? everything seems to be, you know, today we keep them on sight today. but have they thought ahead to what the senate trial is actually going to be like? >> if they have, i am simply not aware of it. [ laughter ] it's always reactive, always based on the president's instincts. the meeting that jonathan swan wrote about starts at 10:00 a.m. well, the day in washington starts a lot earlier than 10:00 a.m. >> and donald trump's been tweeting for three hours. i want to ask you about something phil just said that they are sort of hail mary is to tie the impeachment of donald j. trump over asking for ukrainians. i hear from two former u.s. government officials today who

suggest that that is precisely why this story is out this week. >> yeah. and it's just hard to see how effective that's going to be for two reasons. one is as this has shown, this is not a white house that is functioning in a way that is capable of defending itself and thinking and getting out ahead. and also just because the way that democrats are going about this is -- it's going to be very hard -- >> to focus. >> right. it's so focused. they have gone out of their way not to broaden this into other sorts of things. and so, yeah. he is going to do that. and also he is also going to take some of the mueller playbook in the sense of what we saw today, calling bill taylor, you know, a never-trumper, and all of those things. and again as we have been talking about, that falls apart once you get john bolton and also, you know, tim morrison who's currently at the nsc and replaced fiona hill and is well known, you know, not publicly but privately in republican circles. and so it's just going to be very tricky.

but they are going to try that for sure. after the break, william barr is targeting, investigating, and has opened the door to potentially prosecuting donald trump's perceived political enemies, the men and women who investigated russia's attack on the 2016 election. that ominous story next. ext. of the ivory billed woodpecker. what??? no, no no no no. battery power runs out. lifetime retirement income from tiaa doesn't. guaranteed monthly income for life. nooooo! the best of pressure cooking and air frying now in one pot, and with tendercrisp technology, you can cook foods that are crispy on the outside and juicy on the inside. the ninja foodi pressure cooker,

the pressure cooker that crisps. hendless shrimp even hotter?s you bring back nashville hot! oh yeah - it's back. crispy shrimp... ...tossed in a spicy rub... ...and drizzled with sweet amber honey. more shrimp more ways. endless shrimp's just fifteen ninety nine. hurry in. about being a scientist at 3m. i wanted them to know that innovation is not just about that one 'a-ha' moment. science is a process. it takes time, dedication.

it's a journey. we're constantly asking ourselves, 'how can we do things better and better?' what we make has to work. we strive to protect you. at 3m, we're in pursuit of solutions that make people's lives better. with time, comes change that's for sure... at 3m, we're in pursuit of solutions and when those changes might help more people, especially those in retirement, i think it's worth talking about! so, aag is introducing a new jumbo reverse mortgage loan so you can now access as much as $4 million dollars in cash, tax free, from your home's equity. aag's new jumbo reverse mortgage loan can give you more tax-free cash than ever before. if you've had your home for a while, it's probably worth a lot more today. so why not use that appreciation for anything you need maybe it's some home repairs, or updates to make it more comfortable so you can stay in the place you love.

it's a viable effective way to support your other investments long into the future, and another way aag is working to make your retireme... better. don't wait. get your info kit now! as the white house battles impeachment, it's counting on some help in changing the subject from trump's closest and most subservient political ally, attorney general bill barr. the "new york times" broke the news last night that barr's origins into the russia investigation is now a criminal inquiry. quote, the move gives the prosecutor running it the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents to convene a grand jury and to file criminal charges. the opening is likely to raise alarm that donald trump is using the justice department to go

after his perceived enemies. the crime being investigated remains unknown. and vice chairman of the senate intel committee wants answers. senate intel is wrapping up a three-year bipartisan investigation. we found nothing remotely justifying this. mr. barr's investigation has already jeopardized key international intelligence partnerships. he needs to come before congress and explain himself. joining our conversation, former u.s. attorney joyce vance. joyce, i have some questions about this. one, wasn't -- there are three investigations into the origins of the russia investigation. one was by a guy named john huber. did we ever find out what happened to his investigation? >> we have not found out. john huber is the highly regarded u.s. attorney in utah. and there have been crickets on any outcome from his work. >> okay, joyce. the second one was the doj i.g.

mr. horwitz was also looking at things like the fisa process and whatnot. and if i remember from the hillary clinton email investigation, it was the i.g. i think it was the i.c., i.g., who referred to the fbi some questions or concerns about potential criminal conduct. did that happen in this case? did the doj/i.g. finish their investigation and report this with concerns about crimes? >> so, this process has been a little bit opaque. we know that there was a rush to get the report to get some of the conclusions regarding andy mccabe out public. but we haven't seen the main report here. and this is not a criminal investigation or at least not primarily, nicole. this is an administrative sort of an after-action report. did things happen the way they should have. did people follow doj policy. as you point out, the i.g. can make a criminal referral.

but we are still waiting and expecting this report i think for the last month we've been expecting it every day. >> so what is the history? what is the precedent? what is the need other than politics for a parallel investigation run by the president's ally who before he became the country's attorney general thought that donald trump had been spied on. >> that's what has always made this investigation so troubling. it appeared to be duplicative at a minimum with the i.g.'s investigation. the utah investigation dealt with these allegations that seemed to have already been zeroed out. but at least these last two felt very duplicative. john durham, the u.s. attorney in connecticut is highly regarded as someone who has chased down difficult investigations involving the fbi and the cia in the past and has not felt pressure to indict

those cases. nonetheless, this is very troubling because this investigation appeared to be open because the president wanted it. and of course that's not how we do things in this country. we don't use criminal investigations to satisfy the president's whims and his desires to get his political enemies. >> frank figliuzzi, a former doj official and two former intelligence officials told me that of this durham investigation, there is no predicate. what does that mean? >> it means we have never seen something like this before where you open a case where there are other entities that are perfectly capable of doing it and are in the process of doing it, as you said. and then to see the attorney general micro manage it personally, understand that the attorney general should be recused in this case. why? because he's broadcast to us many months ago his opinion in this case. he said he believes that spying occurred. he thinks something amiss has

happened. he wants to get to the bottom of something that he thinks is wrong. and so now we see an administrative inquiry turned into a criminal matter that puts us on very dangerous ground to send a signal to rank and file intelligence and law enforcement officials if you try to do the right thing, we are coming after you if we don't like your results. >> carol lee, this was precisely the scenario that former u.s. government official articulated being concerned about that the targets are very obvious. they are the men and women who investigated russia's attack on our democracy that robert mueller found donald trump welcomed because it supported and benefitted him. so if you can't find any wrongdoing through your doj/i.g., you go to the other end of where the information came from, the intel community. this is thought to be an investigation into or an effort to target john brennan and others at the cia. to what end? >> well, it's for the president's own personal -- he wants this. i mean, as joyce said he not

only ordered this investigation, but he's predetermined the outcome. and if you just look at what he says when he talks about this publicly, you can see who he's going after. he mentioned them today. >> strip their clearances. >> yeah. he said also, you know, he predetermined the outcome. he's already said that there's treasonist acts that have happened. >> he's determined the punishment too, right? >> he's just kind of wrapped it all up before it's even nearly finished. and he said today we've seen a lot of bad things that are happening. so he's really -- it's just -- everything that happens is so unusual right now, but it's so unusual to see the president of the united states having ordered this investigation predetermined the outcome, already decided where it's going, and then publicly talk about it and name names in this way. >> and the other thing that's different, eugene, is durham was involved in the investigation into i believe it was the destruction of the cia interrogation tapes. that was not a buddy movie with

the attorney general. william barr is, you know, they're logging frequent flyer miles together traveling to foreign capitals. they are doing this in tandem. that is not how durham has sort of preserved his credibility. >> it's not the way he's operated in the past. >> so why does he allow this? >> and i don't know why he does that now. but, again, there are stubborn facts that get in the way of this investigation. just ask the senate intelligence committee run by republican richard burr that found what the intelligence community found, that russia interfered with the election. look at the indictments. how many russians did mueller indict, you know, to reach the burden of proof for an actual indictment, people who are named, the building they worked in, pinpointed. there's all this hard evidence

that establishes what happened. and so even for, you know -- i mean, donald trump is a talented fabulist. but even for the trump administration and its ability to create an alternate reality, there are such specific facts that destroy it. i just don't know how this works for them. >> all right. after the break the targets of the barr probe all have one thing in common, sounding the alarm on russia and examining whether trump whitingly or unwhitingly aided in their efforts in 2016. so the question today, does barr's participation make it harder for all those men and women's successors to fight the russia threat in 2020? we'll tackle that next. that net they give us excellent customer service, every time. our 18 year old was in an accident. usaa took care of her car rental, and getting her car towed. all i had to take care of was making sure that my daughter was ok. if i met another veteran, and they were with another insurance company,

i would tell them, you need to join usaa because they have better rates, and better service. we're the gomez family... we're the rivera family... we're the kirby family, and we are usaa members for life. get your auto insurance quote today. their medicare options...ere people go to learn about 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 today...

to request this free, and very helpful, decision guide. and learn 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. call unitedhealthcare

and ask for your free decision guide. learn more about aarp medicare supplement plan options and rates to fit your needs oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance. i'm supposedly going to be interviewed by mr. durham as part of this noninvestigation. i remember william barr when he was testifying in front of

congress he said he didn't understand the predication of the counter intelligence investigation that was launched in the 2016 election. i don't understand the predication of this worldwide effort to try to uncover dirt either real or imagined that would discredit that investigation in 2016 into russian interference. >> that was former cia director john brennan. he was with us here earlier this month revealing that he's of interest to the justice department and this investigation into the origins of the russia investigation. that was before we all learned that it's now a criminal inquiref. frank, joyce, and the table are back. frank, let me just kick it back to you and ask what could the crimes be if you had to make them up in your imagination. what could the crimes be? >> if i had to make them up which apparently is about to happen, we'd look at false statements, false statements to the court perhaps and a fisa affidavit perhaps to i.g.

investigators. somehow it appears they're trying to attack the opening of the russian counter intelligence investigation itself and the tactics utilized. and they might be trying to attack the use of sources, human assets, during a presidential campaign. i know that a.g. barr seems very offended at the very notion that someone should be investigated during an actual campaign. so don't be surprised if you see attacks on how human sources were used, whether they start claiming entrapment, whether perhaps someone like george pop top list had something dangled in front of him that he bit on. but it still begs the question was the predication for the investigation adequate, and did it in fact uncover criminals? if a bomb goes off on let's say on fifth avenue, we have a pretty good guess that a crime occurred and we open a criminal case. we don't know who did the crime.

but we know a crime occurred. in this inquiry, the attorney general seems to be convinced that a crime has occurred. but we don't know what it is and we don't even know who the suspected criminals are. >> you know what makes me want to bang my head on this table, and i've done it before, i won't do it again, it hurts, is why. why are they all so intent on exonerating russia? former cia director mike hayden called it a political 9/11. we still have an administration at the highest levels, the president trying to get the ukrainians to turn over a server when i don't even know if there is a server. why are all these line ticks still corrupting our national security on the eve of another election? >> and a lot of experts in this field say the most important thing here is that president trump still has not fully acknowledged that russia interfered in the election here in american democracy in 2016 and is set on doing it again in

2020. and, you know, regardless of the details of how this investigation came to be or whether there was some mistake made along the way, the evidence is irrefutable based on the intelligence assessment that russia interfered in many different ways, the hacking of the emails, the misinformation campaign on social media. we have charged dozens of russian officials with those crimes. and it all goes to the president's ego, i think, because he, from day one of this russia investigation, has been angered because he feels like it's an asterisk alongside his name in that 2016 electoral victory. he wants everyone to believe that he won solely because of his charisma, his ability to counterpunch and destroy hillary clinton, that he was the supreme candidate. when you hear about russian interference, he feels like that cuts against his win. >> alexi, you hear everybody in his organization welcoming in interference in 2020. i think it was in an interview with jonathan swan that jared,

again, downplayed the russian attacks. ah, a few facebook ads. he got rudy giuliani saying let's have donald trump tell george listen. basically, green lighting it with the -- of the presidency. >> that's exactly right because it's not just the president. it's folks who are now, according to reporting that i've done this week, in the cybersecurity and intelligence departments throughout the white house who are resonating whose sole job it is is to protect the white house networks and computers from foreign threat actors. that's coming from russia, china, north korea. high level senior staff who work with president trump say that he has simply no appetite for cybersecurity briefings when he's traveling abroad to places like helsinki, hanoi. he simply doesn't care and now these networks from folks within

this organization are completely vulnerable to risks and compromised because the president simply doesn't care. >> of course, they are. frank figliuzzi, thank you for spending time with us. after the break, the country remembers and honors elijah cummings. s and honors elijah cummings you see clear skin. you see me. but if you saw me before cosentyx... ♪ i was covered. it was awful. but i didn't give up. i kept fighting. i got clear skin with cosentyx. 3 years and counting. clear skin can last. see if cosentyx could make a difference for you. cosentyx is proven to help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx, you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen.

serious allergic reactions may occur. see me now. i'm still clear. how sexy are these elbows? get clear skin that can last. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx. billions of problems. dry mouth? parched mouth? cotton mouth? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath oral rinse and lozenges. help relieve dry mouth using natural enzymes to soothe and moisturize. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart.

get the perfectly grilled flavors of an outdoor grill indoors, and because it's a ninja foodi, it can do even more, like transform into an air fryer. the ninja foodi grill, the grill that sears, sizzles, and air fry crisps. and i have to say listening to elijah's daughter speak, that got me choked up. and i was thinking i'd want my daughters to know how much i love them but i'd also want them

to know that being a strong man includes being kind. that there's nothing weak about kindness and compassion. there's nothing weak about looking out for others. there's nothing -- there's nothing weak about being honorable. you're not a sucker to have integrity. and to treat others with respect. >> how good is it to hear that? one man of honor eulogizing another today. a congressman elijah cummings' funeral. eugene, none of these men and i know this from watching the bushes put to rest barbara bush and george w. bush, no one means these high praises and tributes

as an indictment of the current president but they all sound that way. >> they all sound that way and, you know, it's -- president trump has a way of making everything about him. and, in fact, yeah. when you say, you know, being a strong man doesn't mean not being kind or whatever president obama said. that seems like a direct reference. i keep in mind that they're really talking about elijah cummings. i mean, he was an extraordinary person and it's a tribute to the fact that, you know, a man who born in south carolina, share croppers who moved to baltimore, local grocery store owner had to give him money for his application to howard university. went to law school. practiced law. it's an incredible american story. only got to congress in 1996 and, you know, these -- these former presidents -- >> in awe of him. >> in awe of him.

genuinely. it's just a tribute to what kind of man he was. and it's just an amazing person and we'll miss him. >> washington will miss him. we're going to sneak in our last break. we'll be right back. let me tell,

i wouldn't be here if i thought reverse mortgages took advantage of any american senior, or worse, that it was some way to take your home. learn how homeowners are strategically using a reverse mortgage loan to cover expenses, pay for healthcare, preserve your portfolio and so much more. a reverse mortgage loan isn't some kind of trick to take your home. it's a loan, like any other. big difference is how you pay it back. find out how reverse mortgages really work with aag's free, no-obligation reverse mortgage guide. with a reverse mortgage, you can pay whatever you can, when it works for you, or, you can wait, and pay it off in one lump sum when you leave your home. discover the option that's best for you. call today and find out more.

i'm proud to be a part of aag, i trust em, i think you can too. my thanks to phil rucker, eugene robinson. most of all, to you for watching. another wild week. "mtp daily" with my friend chuck todd starts now. welcome to friday. it's "meet the press daily." good evening. i'm chuck todd here in washington. it's been another wild day. democrats have just won a potentially major court victory in the impeachment fight. sort of. it will bring mueller back into the picture. late this afternoon, a